IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
M/s North End Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others – Respondents
Writ Tax No.309 of 2021
Decided on : 31-08-2021
Warehouse (Development and Regulation) Act, 2007 - Section 35 - Rule 10 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Rules 56 & 57 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Business of procuring commodities - Commercial Tax - Petition has been filed by M/s North End Food Marketing against order passed by respondent Commissioner Commercial Tax UP- Lucknow by which he has accepted proposal for revision submitted by Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax Moradabad Zone Moradabad and stayed effect and operation of order passed by additional Commissioner Grade Commercial Tax Moradabad wherein appeal filed by assessee/petitioner company was allowed and decision of respondent –Held, Case second option is approved accordingly stay order may be prepared- This may not be intention of legislature while incorporating said feature- Once supervisory power is being exercised in absence of relevant record merely on basis of certain noting which is forwarded to revisional authority for exercising powers Court is of considered opinion that while exercising revisional power authority has given go-bye to procedure that too without application of independent mind intent of legislature to accord such power revision with a rider is to ensure that there may not be errors in order passed by officer subordinate to revisional authority and order may not be prejudicial to interest of revenue - On above parameters there is hardly any scope for taking another view- Admittedly order impugned has been passed in absence of record and revenue authority has proceeded to endorse on dotted line which has been submitted by subordinate officer- Even though appellate order was appealable which clearly reflects that said action is contrary to procedures contained therein order must be supported by reasons but unfortunately revisional authority/Commissioner did not choose to give reasons in support of order passed by him- This was in plain disregard to requirement of law said order does not satisfy requirement of law- Therefore said action cannot be accepted - Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nishant Mishra and Shri Rahul Agarwal for the petitioner company and Shri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by M/s North End Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 26.3.2021 passed by the respondent no.3/Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow by which he has accepted the proposal for revision submitted by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Commercial Tax, Moradabad Zone, Moradabad and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal)-1st, Commercial Tax, Moradabad, wherein, the appeal filed by the assessee/petitioner company was allowed and decision of the respondent no.5/Deputy Commissioner, Sector-1, State Tax, Chandausi, Sambhal (Assessing Officer), communicated to the petitioner vide e-mails dated 23.7.2020 & 06.8.2020 for blocking of credit, was set aside.
3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 having its unit at Shaktinagar, Chandausi, District Sambhal, U.P.. It is a subsidiary company of M/s Sohanlal Commodity Management Pvt. Ltd['SCMPL'] dealing in the business of procuring commodities on behalf of its customers on Pan India basis, storing such commodities in the warehouses owned and operated by SCMPL and thereafter supplying such commodities to different persons on the instructions of the customers. The SCMPL is primarily engaged in providing warehousing services for which it is registered under the provisions of the Warehouse (Development and Regulation) Act, 2007. On account of multiplicity of operations, the petitioner company maintains its books of account electronically in a centralized system prescribed under Rule 10 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 35 of the GST Act read with Rules 56 & 57 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017['CGST Rules'].
4. The petitioner is mainly dealing in “Mentha” oil in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is duly registered under the provisions of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008['UPVAT Act']. The petitioner availed the credit of input tax paid on the purchases made from the dealers registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of UPVAT Act and after deducting the same from the output tax payable, discharged the net tax liability as per provisions contained in UPVAT Act. After enactment of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017['CGST Act'] and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017['UPGST/SGST Act'] the petitioner was allotted GSTIN No.09AABCN9927F1Z6 on 23.6.2018.
5. Section 16 in Chapter-V of SGST Act provides for eligibility and condition for taking input tax credit. The expressions “input tax”, “input tax credit” and “output tax” have been defined in clauses (62) & (63) of Section 2 of the SGST Act, which read as under:-
a) the integrated goods and service tax charged on import of goods;
b) the tax payable under the provision of sub-section (3) & (4) of Section 9;
c) the tax payable under the provision of sub-section (3) & (4) of Section 5 of Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act (13 of 2017); or
(d) the tax payable under the provision of sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 9 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 but does not include tax paid under the composition levy;
Sec. 2(63) “Input Tax Credit” mean the credit of input tax;
Sec.2 (82) “output tax” in relation to a taxable person, means the tax chargeable under this A
A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Anwar Hasan Khan vs. Mohd. Shafi.
C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
C.C.E vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd.
Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Union of India
Income Tax Officer & Ors. Vs. M/s Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., Calcutta
Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.
N. Ranga Rao & sons vs. State of Karnataka and others
Osram Surya Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore
State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei & Ors.
Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd vs. Union of India
Point of Law : Post-decisional hearing is required to be given to petitioners by respondent no. 2/competent authority who shall hear petitioners/assessees and pass a reasoned order, thereafter, eithe....
The court established that the authority to review and revise assessment orders under the JVAT Act is limited and must adhere to procedural requirements, particularly regarding the initiation of revi....
Limitation would arise under Section 29(6) of the Act, only in the event and at the stage of the application filed under Section 32 being allowed.
An order under Section 154 does not necessitate inquiries, and thus cannot be deemed erroneous under Section 263 without breaching statutory limits.
The appellate authority cannot revise its earlier determinations without new grounds, upholding the principle of functus officio in tax matters.
The revisional powers under the Sales Tax Act are distinct from assessment powers, allowing for the correction of illegalities without infringing on the assessment of escaped turnover.
The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exceeded jurisdiction by failing to act within one year as mandated under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, confirming procedural timeliness is essential i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.