9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 258 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxBenefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989 - manufacturers of Oil - jurisdiction of AO - Held that - the benefit is only available upto 4.4.1994 and not later- on, and since in the instant cases, admittedly the assessment years involved are of 1995-96 on-wards, therefore, no benefit was available to the respondent assessees. Once the apex court has held that benefits are available upto 4.4.1994, no other authority could have taken any other view. Levy of interest u/s 58 of the RST Act - Held that - the interest is leviable, if the dealer or a person commits default in making payment of any amount of tax leviable or payable, and admittedly the tax has not paid on or after 4.4.1994 by the assessees and, therefore, in my view the tax having not been paid the interest was certainly leviable and has rightly been levied by the AO. The revision petitions are required to be allowed and accordingly allowed - The orders passed by the Tax Board and DC(A), are hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the AO is sustained - decided in favor of AO.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989 after 4.4.1994. 2. Jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench to hear the petitions. 3. Requirement of amendment in the eligibility certificate from DLSC. 4. Levy of interest under Section 58 of the RST Act, 1994. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to the benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989 after 4.4.1994: The respondents, manufacturers of oil, claimed entitlement to the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989. The Assessing Officer, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan & Another v. Gopal Oil Mills & Another (1999), concluded that benefits were not applicable after 4.4.1994, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent levy of tax and interest. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board allowed the appeals of the assessee, but the High Court quashed these orders, upholding the Assessing Officer's stance, citing the Supreme Court's decision that benefits under the incentive scheme were only valid up to 4.4.1994. 2. Jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench to hear the petitions: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, arguing that the assessee, situated in District Nagaur, should fall under Jodhpur's jurisdiction. The court noted that similar cases from District Nagaur had been decided by the Jaipur Bench and that both appellate authorities were within Jaipur's jurisdiction. The court referenced Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which supports the view that the place of appellate/revisional order can give rise to a part of the cause of action, thereby justifying the Jaipur Bench's jurisdiction. 3. Requirement of amendment in the eligibility certificate from DLSC: The court examined whether the Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) were justified in insisting on the amendment of the eligibility certificate and permission of the DLSC. The court held that the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mill (1999) rendered any such requirement unnecessary, as the apex court’s decision was binding and precluded any benefits under the incentive scheme post-4.4.1994. The doctrine of useless formality was deemed applicable, as the DLSC could not decide contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling. 4. Levy of interest under Section 58 of the RST Act, 1994: The court upheld the levy of interest under Section 58 of the RST Act, 1994, on the grounds that the respondents failed to pay the tax due after 4.4.1994. The court cited the statutory provision that mandates interest on defaults in tax payments and dismissed the respondents' reliance on J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO, distinguishing it from the present case since the assessments were post-4.4.1994. The court concluded that the interest was rightly levied by the Assessing Officer. Conclusion: The court allowed the revision petitions, quashing the orders of the Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), and reinstated the Assessing Officer's order. The court emphasized adherence to the Supreme Court's decisions, affirming that benefits under the incentive scheme were not applicable after 4.4.1994, and upheld the levy of interest for unpaid taxes post that date.
|
