Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA, DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation – Respondent
Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2021 in Vat Second Appeal No.101 of 2014
Decided on : 08-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Himanshu B. Takke
For the Respondent: Mr. Ratan Samalo
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Section 23(5) - Sales Tax Tribunal decision on concessional rate of tax - Appeal by State against Tribunal's order allowing Respondent's claim for tax on 'C' forms issued by certain dealers - The Tribunal ruled Respondent is entitled to raise additional grounds in appeal and that assessment authority has wide powers in appeal proceedings. (Paras 1, 5, 12, 25)
(B) Appellate Authority's powers - The authority can consider additional claims, not restricted to only those presented in the Assessment Order, reinforcing the principle that appellate proceedings are an extension of assessment proceedings. (Paras 11, 16)
(C) Justification for assessment - The Respondent's 'C' forms were deemed valid and should be considered despite them not being initially included in the assessment, affirming discretion of authorities in tax matters. (Para 12)
(D) Finality of orders - Tribunal's order stands if no substantial question of law is raised by the Appellant, thus ensuring the Respondent’s claim is justly entertained. (Paras 26, 27)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the appeal and assessment details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. tribunal's findings on appeal concerning 'c' forms. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding appeal scope. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. wide powers of appellate authority regarding claims in appeal. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 24) |
| 5. tribunal's conclusion upheld regarding consideration of claims. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
1. This is an Appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2020 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal in VAT Second Appeal No.101 of 2014 under Section 27 of the MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT , 2002 (for short the ‘ MVAT Act , 2002’) proposing the following substantial questions of law :-
“(a) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal on the true and proper construction of Section 23(5) of Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002, was justified in holding that disallowance of Respondent’s claim for concessional rate of tax in respect of transaction stated in ‘C’ forms issued by Varsha Controls Gear under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 ?
(b) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal on the true and proper construction of Section 23(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002, was justified in allowing the Respondent’s appeal ?
(c) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in interpreting Section 23(5) of the MVAT Act , 2002, with regard considering the claim of the Respondent which was not part of the Assessment Order ?
(d) Whether on true and correct interpretation of the Section 23(5) of the MVAT Act , 2002, the Tribunal was justified in liberally interpreting and expanding the scope of the statutory provisions contained in Section 23(5) of the MVAT Act , 2002, when there is no ambiguity in the statute ?”
2. The Respondent-M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation is stated to be a reseller of iron and steel and a dealer registered under the MVAT Act , 2002.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax assessed the Respondent-Dealer for the period from 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2006 under the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 raising a total demand of Rs.6,11,828/- on the Respondent-Dealer. The Respondent-Dealer was served with a notice in Form 603 under Section 64 of the MVAT Act , 2002, but did not attend on the appointed date and, therefore, a notice in Form VI(E) was issued and served requesting him to attend on 27th June, 2013, which also the Respondent-Dealer did not attend. The Deputy Commissioner therefore passed the Assessment Order dated 29th June, 2013 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 under Section 23(5) of the MVAT Act , 2002 to the best of his judgment on the basis of available record.
4. Against the Assessment Order, the Respondent-Dealer filed an Appeal to set aside the Assessment Order stating that the same was ex-parte and also to accept the ‘C’ forms received from M/s. Varsha Controls Gear for the corresponding sales worth Rs.11,40,355/- and ‘C’ forms received from M/s. Dynacraft Air Controls for the corresponding sales worth Rs.33,02,712/-. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the Appeal of the Respondent-Dealer i.e. considered the ‘C’ forms issued by M/s. Dynacraft Air Controls for concessional rate of tax, but rejected the ‘C’ forms issued by M/s. Varsha Controls Gear on the ground that those transactions were not covered under the Assessment Order passed under Section 23(5) of the MVAT Act , 2002.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent-Dealer filed an Appeal before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal contending that the ‘C’ forms issued by M/s. Varsha Controls Gear be taken into consideration and the same be accepted and a refund of Rs.1,59,934/- be issued. The Tribunal affirmatively answering the question that the Appellate Authority had erred in disallowing the Respondent-Dealer’s claim for concessional rate of tax regarding the ‘C’ forms issued by M/s. Varsha Controls Gear, allowed the Appeal of the Respondent-Dealer and remanded the matter back to th
