9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 70 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the Tribunal was justified in providing the benefit of exemption of tax to the Respondent contrary to the findings arrived at by the Assessing Authority and that too without considering the adverse material found during survey dated 4/5th July, 2001? - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has accepted the reasoning given by the assessee that the amount of cash of ₹ 12,20,000/- discovered was not utilized towards the sale or purchase of raw material and also that the Assessing Authority could not found any discrepancy in the cash book and various documents and accounts maintained by the assessee and, therefore, the rejection of book of accounts was against the provisions of law. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that from the cash book maintained by the assessee transaction from the date 3.7.2000 to 15.11.2000 the cash of ₹ 12,20,000/- found could not be said to be related to any transaction and nor the said transaction has been pointed out in the assessing order and, therefore, no adverse interference in this case can be made against the assessee and, therefore, the additions made were set aside - No fact could be placed by the State which can persuade this Court to take a view different from the view recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, this question is answered in favour of the assessee as against the the respondent. Whether the Learned Trade Tribunal was justified in waiving of the interest which was liable under Section 8(1) on the admitted sale turn over like admitted tax? - HELD THAT - In the present case, Form 3 Kha was not valid for the assessment year in question and, therefore, the tax was rightly levied upon the sale transaction - It is not in dispute in the present case that the assessee himself mentioned certificate in their accounts the turnover to claim benefit of Section 3 Kha, which according to the provisions of the Act were on the face of it not valid and this did not require any deep examination of the issue. Whether the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is justified ignoring the facts set out in the assessment order which was passed strictly in accordance facts available on records as also the provisions of the Trade Tax Rules - HELD THAT - It is found that the respondent dealer himself filed the invalid Form 3 -B, contrary to provisions of the Act. It was well within the knowledge of the respondent dealer that 44 Form 3-B were not valid for the financial year 2000-01 and the respondent dealer is liable to pay the tax at full rate i. e. at the rate of 10 per cent but despite the fact, respondent dealer did not deposit the tax at full rate i.e at the rate of 10 per cent and deposited the tax at concessional rate at the rate of 2.5 per cent and deliberately claimed the exemption which was not admissible to him - the Tribunal has wrongly granted relief to the assessee by deleting interest. After rejection of Form 3-b the amount of interest levied on admitted tax was liable to be paid by the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard is in conformity with the statutory schemes. Revision allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in providing tax exemption contrary to the findings of the Assessing Authority. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in waiving interest liable under Section 8(1) on the admitted sale turnover. 3. Justification of the Tribunal's judgment ignoring the facts set out in the assessment order and the provisions of the Trade Tax Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Tribunal in providing tax exemption contrary to the findings of the Assessing Authority: The State challenged the Tribunal's decision that allowed tax exemption to the respondent, arguing it contradicted the Assessing Authority's findings and overlooked adverse material from a survey conducted on 4/5th July 2001. The Assessing Authority had rejected the respondent's books of accounts, citing discrepancies in stock and collusion with other firms to evade tax. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessment was based on conjectures and surmises, noting that no adverse material was found in the respondent's premises. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the books of accounts was without reasonable basis and decided in favor of the respondent. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the State failed to provide new facts to overturn the Tribunal's findings, thus answering this question in favor of the respondent. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in waiving interest liable under Section 8(1) on the admitted sale turnover: The Tribunal had waived the interest imposed on the respondent for the admitted sale turnover, which the Assessing Authority had calculated based on invalid Form 3-B submissions. The Tribunal reasoned that the tax was not "admittedly payable" under Section 8 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, as the transactions were disputed. However, the High Court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, which clarified that interest is payable on tax once it is confirmed as due, regardless of disputes. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in waiving the interest and reinstated the Assessing Authority's decision to levy interest, answering this question in favor of the revenue. 3. Justification of the Tribunal's judgment ignoring the facts set out in the assessment order and the provisions of the Trade Tax Rules: The Tribunal had partially allowed the respondent's appeal, rejecting the Assessing Authority's findings of tax evasion and discrepancies in stock. It held that the assessment was based on insufficient evidence and that the respondent's explanation for the cash transactions was satisfactory. The High Court reviewed the Tribunal's reasoning and the evidence presented, concluding that the Tribunal's decision to reject the books of accounts was justified due to lack of concrete evidence from the Assessing Authority. Consequently, the High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment on this issue, thus answering in favor of the respondent. Conclusion: The High Court's judgment partly allowed the revision. It upheld the Tribunal's decision to provide tax exemption and reject the books of accounts due to insufficient evidence but overturned the Tribunal's waiver of interest, reinstating the interest levied by the Assessing Authority.
|
