9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t quarter of 2001-02, has consistently been that no tax is imposable upon it as it has sold the goods on which tax had been paid at the stage of first stage of sale. While answering the question of law in favour of the dealer-assessee, we set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal, dated November 1, 2007, and all other orders including the assessment orders raising the additional demand. - VATAP No. 56, 57,58 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2009 - KUMAR M.M. AND BHALLA H.S. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by M.M. KUMAR J. This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of 2008. The dealer-assessee has approached this court by filing these appeals under section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh) (for brevity, the Act ) against the orders dated November 1, 2007 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal ) in Appeal Nos. 96, 97 and 98 of 2007, in respect of the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, respectively. The dealer-assessee has claimed that the following question of law would arise for determination of this court: Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the Union Territory, Chandigarh and find that the appellant failed to file declaration in form ST-XXII-A as required under the Rules before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority in spite of several opportunities allowed by both these authorities to do so. The Assessing Authority has therefore, rightly created additional demand of Rs. 1,91,484 under the PGST Act. We therefore, see no illegality in the orders of the Assessing Authority and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and while upholding the same dismiss the present appeal having no merits. Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned counsel for the dealer-assessee has argued that a Division Bench of this court in the case of Prestolite of India Limited v. State of Haryana [1988] 70 STC 198 has held that production of C and D forms, which entitle the dealer-assessee in that case, to claim concessional rate of tax was although mandatory but the provision was held to be directory in so far as the relevant documents could have been produced at any stage in the assessment proceedings. In other words, the submission made by Mr. Goyal is that the forms could have been submitted before the Assessing Authority, Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of dealers shall be such as may be specified by the State Government in the notification. Rule 29(xi) of the Rules Rule 29. In calculating his taxable turnover a registered dealer may deduct from his gross turnover, (i) to (x)... (xi) the sale or purchase of goods which have already been subjected to tax under section 5(1A) or section 5(3), as the case may be: Provided that the dealer produces copies of cash memos or bills prescribed under rule 55A at the time of assessment or when called upon to do so, by notice, by the competent authority under the Act. A conjoint perusal of section 5(1A) of the 1948 Act and rule 29(xi) of the Rules shows that in the hands of a seller no tax would be leviable if such goods were purchased from a registered dealer in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and were chargeable to tax at its first stage of sale. Such tax should have actually been paid at the time of purchase provided declaration in form ST XXIIA has been furnished. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410 has dealt with a piece of legislation, namely, Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the expression the first assessing authority has not been used. Instead, the words used in the proviso are the dealer effecting the sale at such subsequent stage furnishes to the assessing authority in the prescribed form and manner a certificate duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer... Therefore, there is no principle of law discernible from section 5(1A) of the 1948 Act or rule 29(xi) of the Rules confining production of beneficial documents by the dealerassessee only before the Assessing Authority and that no such documents can be produced before the appellate authorities. The issue has also come up before a Division Bench of this court in the case of Prestolite of India Limited [1988] 70 STC 198 wherein it has been held that production of such beneficial documents was mandatory for the grant of concessional rate of tax but the provision was directory in so far as the stage of their production is concerned. Such documents could be produced at any stage in the assessment proceedings. It means that such beneficial documents could be produced before the Assessing Authority, Commissioner, Tribunal or even the High Court. Therefore, the principle of law which is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
