Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jupiter International Limited vs The Senior Joint Commissioner on 20 February, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
44 20.02.14 W.P. 26565 (W) of 2013
akd
Jupiter International Limited.
Vs.
The Senior Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax & Ors.
--------
Mr. Anil Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee.
... for the State.
The order dated 16th April, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate & Revisional Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in Revision (VAT) Case No. 2094 of 2010- 2011 is assailed in this writ petition.
The petitioner has shown the goods worth Rs. 4,52,15,725.41p. as stock transfer in the return filed for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. Before the Assessing Authority it is sought to be contended that there was a mistake in showing the said goods under the head "stock transfer", in fact those goods were imported directly from abroad and sent to the destination outside the State of West Bengal. The Assessing Authority, however, decided the matter, which the petitioner felt that the same is not correct.
The petitioner assailed the said order before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority decided the appeal in absence of the petitioner, as the petitioner failed to appear on the date of hearing. The revisional application before the Board is also dismissed basically on two grounds; firstly that the petitioner failed to submit the revised return within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 33 (3) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 2 and secondly that the documents sought to be produced for the first time shall not be accepted.
It is no doubt true that a particular amount is shown under stock transfer and it is equally true that revised return is not filed within the period prescribed under Section 33 (3) of the said Act. While making an assessment on the basis of the return, the authorities are not denuded of power to disallow any claim under a particular head, if the documents and other evidence suggest otherwise. It is also equally true that if the documents are produced by the Assessee, which manifests that the amount shown under a particular head is wrongly shown therein, the authorities, if otherwise satisfied on the basis of the documents as well as the explanation offered, cannot deny the benefit as the petitioner has shown the said amount under a wrong head.
Learned advocate for both the parties are uniform in submitting that there is no impediment on the part of the Board to accept the documents filed for the first time for being considered on merit. It is no doubt true that the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate & Revisional Board, being the last fact finding authority, has to record its satisfaction on the documents produced for the first time before it and should also record the reasons relating to the non-production of those documents either before the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority.
The order impugned in this writ petition is bereft of any such reasoning except a stray statement that the Assessee has not explained why the said documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer. This Court further finds that the Board could 3 not have denied the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that the revised return is not filed within a period of six months, if the documents sought to be produced otherwise proves beyond the reasonable doubt that the amount shown under a particular head is not correct.
This Court, hereby, quash and set aside the order dated April 16, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate & Revisional Board. The Board is directed to reconsider the revisional application upon taking note of the documents filed by the petitioner and shall record the reasons relating to the acceptability or non- acceptability of those documents as well as its relevancy in the context of the dispute. The Board shall consider the said revisional application in the light of the observations made hereinabove and shall dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
For abundant precaution, it is hereby made clear that this order shall not have any persuasive effect on the merit of the said revisional application and the authorities shall be free to decide the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 4