2016 (1) TMI 140 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the revenue authorities could treat the transaction in question to be that of inter-State sale when a branch office of Lucky Laboratories is said to have obtained the goods from Ghaziabad and has claimed to have sold the goods to the appellant within the State of Bihar - Held that - Question of mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act raised on behalf of the appellant has been considered in detail with reference to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal as also the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also noted the consideration of the same in the original order dated 1.3.1995 passed in revision as also in the review judgment dated 7.9.1999 stating that the case laws reported in 1996 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT were discussed in detail and the applicability of the ratios decided in these cases and came to the conclusion that the case laws cited do not help the petitioner and accordingly it was of the firm view that the Tribunal did not overlook the mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act and has rightly opined that if M/s. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. had paid any tax treating its transaction as inter-State transaction it can seek redressal in proper forum according to law. - A review by its very nature has a limited scope and it is not that the reviewing authority sits in appeal over the order passed earlier. - fresh substantial question of law sought to be raised by the appellant has any substance in it. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the revenue authorities could treat the transaction as an inter-State sale?
2. Whether an appeal is maintainable against the order of the Tribunal refusing a second review application?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that Section 11 of the Act has not been overlooked?

Analysis:

1. Inter-State Sale Transaction Issue:
The appellant questioned whether the revenue authorities could consider the transaction as an inter-State sale when goods were obtained from one state and sold within Bihar. The appeal was admitted to address this substantial legal question. However, during the hearing, the State argued that the raised question did not apply to the case, as the appeal was not against the original revision order but a subsequent review application. Ultimately, the Court found that the substantial question of law raised by the appellant did not have merit in the present appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Maintainability of Appeal Issue:
The State contended that no appeal was maintainable against the Tribunal's decision to reject a second review application, citing a Supreme Court decision. The appellant had initially filed a review application under Section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, which was rejected. The State argued that the appellant should have pursued a reference under Section 48 of the Act instead of filing a second review application. However, during the appeal hearing, the State did not press this preliminary objection, shifting the focus to the substantive legal question raised by the appellant.

3. Section 11 of the Act Issue:
The appellant raised a contention that the Tribunal had erred in not considering the mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act. The Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision in detail, noting that the provision was discussed thoroughly in previous orders and with reference to relevant case laws. The Tribunal concluded that it had not overlooked Section 11 and advised that if the concerned party had paid tax under a mistaken interpretation, they could seek redressal through appropriate legal channels. The reviewing authority emphasized the limited scope of a review and found no substance in the fresh legal question raised by the appellant regarding the application of Section 11.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal after considering the issues related to the classification of the transaction, the maintainability of the appeal against the Tribunal's decision on review applications, and the interpretation of Section 11 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the limited scope of review proceedings.