9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 221 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDetermination of State for chargeability of goods - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the goods which were sold and made chargeable to tax in the State of Maharashtra are chargeable to tax in Gujarat since the payment thereof was made within the State of Gujarat Held that - The tax liability against the appellant has been confirmed by holding that the goods which were purchased by the appellant in public auction held in State of Maharashtra have in fact been sold in the State of Gujarat - on inquiry and investigation by the authority it has been found that all those dealers in whose favour alleged sales / transactions have taken place are non-existence and even they are not registered dealers with the sales authority in the State of Maharashtra the goods have been sold in the State of Gujarat and in favour of dealers in the State of Gujarat and even payments have also been received in the State of Gujarat - even the appellant is not registered dealer in the State of Gujarat and therefore, appellant could not have sold the goods in the State of Maharashtra - Thus, as such the appellant could not prove and/or establish that in fact goods purchased in the State of Maharashtra were in fact sold to the dealers in the State of Maharashtra - when there are concurrent findings of the facts given by both Tribunal as well as AO, which are on appreciation of evidence, which are neither shown or demonstrated to be perverse, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arise - Under appellate jurisdiction u/s 78 of the Act, it is not required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and / or interfere with the finding given by the authority below which are on appreciation of evidence unless it has been demonstrated that the findings are perverse and / or contrary to the evidence on record. The Tribunal has not held that the goods were chargeable to tax in Gujarat solely on the ground that the payment thereof was made within the State of Gujarat - The entire evidence on record and bundle of facts are required to be considered - The AO as well as Tribunal has held that goods were sold and chargeable to tax in Gujarat on appreciating the entire evidence on record and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case which are referred to herein above, more particularly, identity and / or existence of the dealers to whom the goods were alleged to be sold in State of Maharashtra is not established; that those dealers in the State of Maharashtra to whom the goods were alleged to have been sold are not registered dealers in the State of Maharashtra; that there are transactions with the dealers in the State of Gujarat; payment with respect to the goods sold is received in the State of Gujarat; that the appellant itself is not registered dealer in the State of Maharashtra and therefore, could not have even sold the goods in the State of Maharashtra. Assessment order barred by jurisdiction or not Bar of limitation Held that - The competent authority did pass an order of extension of period of limitation in exercise of proviso to subsection (2) of Section 42 which empowers the State Government and Commissioner to extend the period specified in subsection (1) of Section 42 - The order of extension which in fact was with the consent of the appellant, has attained the finality the Tribunal has rightly held that if any valid extension is there, assessment can be made subsequent to the date of expiry of the period provided in subsection (1) of Section 42 - the appellant gave consent for extension of time, 30.3.2006 and the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax extended the time on 30.6.2006 and the time limit was extended upto 31.3.2007 and the assessment order has been passed on 31.3.2007 i.e. within the extended time limit thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error and / or illegality in dismissing the appeals and not accepted the contention on behalf of the appellant that the assessment order is bad in law on the ground of limitation. Non deposit of pre-deposit Held that - The Tribunal ought not to have entered into the merits of the case and / or decided the appeals on merits against the order of assessment - when the appellant made submissions on merits against the order of assessment as if the appeals before the Tribunal were against the order of assessment and when the Tribunal has dealt with and considered the same and decided the appeals on merits and when appellant has lost in the appeals on merits, thereafter it not open for the appellant now to make the grievance that the Tribunal ought not to have decided the appeals on merits thus, it is not open for the appellant now to raise a grievance that the Tribunal ought not to have entered into the merits of the case and dismissed the appeals on merits, when the submissions were made before the Tribunal as if appeals are on merits against the order of assessment also and more particularly, when the appellants have lost on merits Decided against appellant assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of goods sold in Maharashtra but payments made in Gujarat. 2. Imposition of double taxation on transactions already taxed in Maharashtra. 3. Lack of corroborative evidence indicating delivery of goods in Gujarat. 4. Jurisdiction and limitation of assessment orders. 5. Consideration of irrelevant material and ignoring relevant evidence in determining taxability. Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of Goods Sold in Maharashtra but Payments Made in Gujarat: The appellant argued that the goods purchased in Maharashtra and sold to dealers in Maharashtra should not be taxed in Gujarat merely because payments were made in Gujarat. The court, however, upheld the Tribunal's finding that the goods were sold in Gujarat based on the evidence that payments were received in Gujarat and the dealers in Maharashtra were non-existent and unregistered. The court emphasized that the entire evidence and bundle of facts must be considered, not just the location of payment. 2. Imposition of Double Taxation: The appellant contended that taxing the same transaction in both Maharashtra and Gujarat amounted to double taxation. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority had only considered whether subsequent sales were liable to tax after the first sale within Maharashtra, without determining the actual location of the sales. The Gujarat authorities found that the sales were made in Gujarat based on their investigation and evidence. 3. Lack of Corroborative Evidence Indicating Delivery of Goods in Gujarat: The appellant claimed there was no evidence showing that goods were delivered in Gujarat. The court dismissed this claim, stating that the appellant failed to prove the goods were sold to dealers in Maharashtra, as the alleged dealers were non-existent and unregistered. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the goods were sold in Gujarat based on the overall evidence, including the receipt of payments in Gujarat. 4. Jurisdiction and Limitation of Assessment Orders: The appellant argued that the assessment orders were barred by limitation and issued by an unauthorized authority. The court rejected this argument, noting that the period of limitation was extended with the appellant's consent and by the competent authority, as allowed under Section 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. The assessment order was thus validly passed within the extended time limit. 5. Consideration of Irrelevant Material and Ignoring Relevant Evidence: The appellant claimed the Tribunal's decision was based on irrelevant material and ignored relevant evidence. The court found that the Tribunal had properly considered all relevant evidence, including the non-existence of the alleged dealers in Maharashtra and the receipt of payments in Gujarat. The court held that the findings of the Tribunal were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence and were neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the goods purchased in Maharashtra and sold to non-existent dealers in Maharashtra were actually sold in Gujarat, making them taxable in Gujarat. The court also found that the assessment orders were validly issued within the extended period of limitation and that the Tribunal's findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding double taxation, lack of evidence, and jurisdiction were rejected.
|
