9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 165 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDirection to the 3rd respondent to furnish the shipping document or best evidence in respect of the supplies made by the petitioner to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration for the purpose of availing concessional rate of tax - Rejection for want of copies of the shipping documents - HELD THAT - In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep it is stated that the petitioner is seeking shipping documents from the Administrator after lapse of several years. the petitioner never claimed or insisted for shipping documents at the time of delivery/supply of goods. The purchases were made during 2005 to 2010 and once the petitioner s claim for concessional rate of tax @ 4% was rejected, the petitioner started litigation. Considering the fact that at the earlier round of litigation before this Court, this Court has not granted similar reliefs as sought for in this writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration may be correct in saying that for supplies made during 2005 to 2010, at this point of time documents may not be available. There are no ground to issue direction as sought in this writ petition - Therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include a dispute regarding the furnishing of shipping documents or best evidence for supplies made by the petitioner to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration to avail a concessional tax rate under the KVAT Act. The petitioner sought a direction to either obtain the necessary documents or receive payment for the tax concession availed. Judgment Details: Issue 1 - Dispute over Furnishing of Shipping Documents: The petitioner had sold items to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration and claimed a reduction in tax rate to 4% under the KVAT Act. However, the claim for a 4% concession based on Form 42 was initially rejected due to the lack of shipping documents for the period from 2005 to 2011. Assessment orders were passed for various financial years, and after a previous judgment quashing the orders, revised assessments were made, leading to the petitioner claiming a refund for overpaid taxes. Issue 2 - Writ Appeal Against Previous Judgment: The State filed a writ appeal against the previous judgment that favored the petitioner, leading to a Division Bench allowing the appeal in 2021. The Bench granted the petitioner the liberty to request shipping documents from the Administrator of Lakshadweep within a specified timeframe and directed the Assessing Officer to reassess based on the new evidence provided. Issue 3 - Contempt Petitions and Dismissal: Following the liberty granted by the Division Bench, the petitioner requested documents from the Administrator but faced dismissal of contempt petitions related to the matter. Despite the dismissal, the petitioner filed a new writ petition seeking the same documents for the period from 2005 to 2011. Final Decision: In response to the petitioner's writ petition, the Administrator of Lakshadweep argued that the request for shipping documents came after several years and was not raised at the time of delivery. The Administrator contended that the documents for supplies made during 2005 to 2010 might not be available at this point. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim was not maintainable, and no direction was issued, with no costs imposed. This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, court decisions, and arguments presented by the parties involved.
|
