Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 434
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
M/S GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK & ANR
VS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
Petition No.16/2014 (SL No.230746)
Decided on: 20.06.2014
Procedural laws should facilitate justice rather than serve as penal tools. Appellate and revisionary authorities should admit material additional evidence, such as "C" forms, even if delayed, provided the omission was not willful and the documents are essential for determining correct tax liability.
Headnote:(A) Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 81(1); Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 9(2); Assam General Sales Tax Act - Section 34(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Production of additional evidence at appellate or revisionary stage - Admissibility of "C" forms - Whether documents produced at the revisionary stage can be rejected solely on the ground of delay.
(B) Admissibility of additional evidence - Under Section 34(2) of the Sales Tax Act, the appellate authority or tribunal may allow a party to produce evidence not produced at an earlier stage if it is satisfied that the failure to produce such evidence was not willful or unreasonable. This provision is akin to Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is intended to ensure substantial justice through a fair and reasonable trial.
(C) Construction of procedural laws - A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, not to act as a penal enactment or a means to trip parties up. Technical constructions that leave no room for reasonable elasticity should be avoided, as procedural laws are grounded in the principles of natural justice. (Paras referencing general principles of procedure)
Facts of the case:
A registered dealer was assessed for state and central sales tax for the assessment year 2008-2009. During the assessment, the dealer failed to produce "C" forms to claim benefits for interstate transactions despite being granted multiple opportunities. The dealer subsequently produced the relevant "C" forms during a revision petition before the additional commissioner. The revisionary authority and the tribunal both rejected the forms, holding that it was too late to file them at the revision stage and that sufficient opportunity had already been provided.
Findings of Court:
The approach of the revisionary and appellate authorities in rejecting the relevant forms solely due to the delay in filing is unsustainable. Since the laws permit the filing of additional evidence at the appellate stage, this power can and should be exercised by the revisionary authority to examine the legality and correctness of an assessment order.
Issues: Whether the revisionary and appellate authorities were justified in refusing to take on record material documentary evidence ("C" forms) produced at the revision stage solely on the grounds of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural laws must be interpreted to facilitate justice rather than frustrate it. When documents are prima facie relevant to the determination of tax liability and their genuineness is not contested by the revenue, the delay in filing should be condoned if the cause is sufficient. The revisionary authority, as a higher authority in the hierarchy, has the power to admit additional evidence to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated by technicalities.
Result: Revision petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; case remanded to the assessing authority for fresh assessment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tax law
-
sales tax
- central sales tax
-
state sales tax
- assam general sales tax act
-
assessment
- reassessment
- revision of assessment
-
sales tax
-
practice and procedure
-
appeals and revisions
- additional evidence
- condonation of delay
- revisional powers
-
evidence
- documentary evidence
-
civil procedure code
- order 41 rule 27
-
appeals and revisions
JUDGMENT
(A.M.Sapre, CJ)
This is a revision filed by the Dealer/Assessee under Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 against the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by Assam Board of Revenue at Guwahati (for short called The Board) in Case No.40 STA of 2012.
By impugned order, the Board dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner under Section 4 (2) of the Act and in consequence upheld the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam in respect of assessment year – 2008-2009 made by the assessing authority by assessment order dated 13.7.2010.
Looking to the short point involved in the revision, we heard the matter finally after giving notice of the revision to the State Counsel at the time of admission of the revision and admitting the revision for final hearing, heard the matter finally after affording an opportunity to parties of making their submissions through their lawyers and upon perusal of the record of the case, formed an opinion to allow the revision and while setting aside the order of the Tribunal so also the revisionary order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, and also that of the assessing authority dated 13.7.2010 remand the case to the assessing authority to make fresh assessment in the light of our observations made herein below.
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Assam General Sales Tax Act (for short called ‘the Act’) read with the provisions of Assam Value Added Tax Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various milk products under the brand name “Amul“.
The petitioner was assessed to payment of State and Central Sales Tax for the assessment year 2008-2009 by the assessing authority by its order dt. 13.7.2010. During the assessment proceedings, the petitioner had claimed the benefit of certain interstate transactions by taking recourse to “C“ forms under the Central Sales Tax Act but since they failed to produce the said “C“ forms before the assessing authority at the time of assessment in support of their claim and hence they could not claim any benefit on such transactions.
The petitioner filed revision against the assessment order before the Additional Commissioner of Taxes. In this revision, the petitioner filed the relevant “C” form, which they were not able to file before the assessing authority. It is clear from the order dated 15.9.2011, which records this fact in the order:
“(c) The relevant Forms have since been collected, and hence assessing officer should be directed to accept the same.”
The revisionary authority however by order dt. 15.9.2011 declined to take the forms though filed before him for consideration saying in substance that now it is too late to file such forms at the revision stage when several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file. This is what the revisionary authority held on this issue in the concluding para :
“In the present case, the petitioner was allowed time as per their requests on 9 occasions i.e. 8.10.2009 to 9.6.2010. The assessment year in issue was 2008-2009 and hence the petitioner should have submitted all the Forms before 30.6.2009. But the dealer could not do so even upto 9.6.2010 though time as prayed for was granted to him. Under the circumstances, I think it is a fit case to take a “stiffer standard” as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly, as the petitioner could not submit the Forms within the prescribed time, and as he could not do so even after availing time as per his prayer, I do not consider it proper to accept the Forms at the revisional stage. There is another reason to do so as there must be an end to any legal proceeding. The proceeding cannot be allowed to prolongate indefinitely as that would defeat the purpose of law in allowing reasonable opportunity in cases of extreme hardship. In the present cases more than sufficient reasonable oppo
