State Taxation Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Master Craft Exports vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 8 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2001]124STC391(TRIBUNAL)
ORDER
L. Palamalai, Administrative Member
1. The O.P. is taken up for final disposal after hearing the learned Government Advocate Mr. R. Mahadevan.
2. The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondent/assessing authority to issue revised order and demand in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner dated April 11, 2001 and further to issue certificate regarding the date of service of the order of assessment.
3. Mr. R. Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 65,163 for the assessment year 1998-99, whereas the assessing authority has taken into account only a sum of Rs. 46,444. In the order of assessment, the cheque for Rs. 18,719 bearing No. 788573 dated April 20, 1999 has not been taken into consideration in arriving at the tax paid under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1998-99. Further, there is an excess payment of Rs. 233 under the Central Sales Tax Act which should be adjusted against the tax due under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the year 1998-99 and that a certificate should be issued in regard date of service of the assessment order.
4. He further stated that, in spite of personal contact by the petitioner after the letter dated April 11, 2001, no revised order has been received and therefore, directions may be given to the assessing authority to issue revised order and certificate as sought for in the prayer.
5. On perusing the records, I find that there is absolutely no case to demand any certificate regarding the date of service of the assessment order on the ground that it was demanded by the appellate authority for the purpose of filing appeal. The T.N.G.S.T. Act and Rules do not contemplate any certificate to be furnished, regarding the date of service of the assessment order. As per Rule 27 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, against the order of assessment, shall be in form I and it shall be in duplicate, and also there is a column in form I regarding the date on which the order was communicated. The appeal in form I, shall be accompanied by two copies of the order, one of which shall be the original or certified copy of the order.
6. When the assessee says that the order for 1998-99 dated November 29, 2000 was received on March 12, 2001, it is enough if the date of service of the order is indicated in form I against the respective column. If there is any doubt, it is for the appellate authority to call for the records through the departmental representative to verify the correctness of the date of service of the assessment order.
7. In any event, in this case, even according to the assessee, the appeal has not been filed within the period of 30 days and therefore, when condonation of delay petition is filed, the appellate authority is going to verify the records to find out the date of service so as to ensure whether the further delay was within the period of 30 days as contemplated in the proviso to Section 31(1) of the TNGST Act, 1959, so as to condone the delay.
8. As regards the adjustment, of any excess payment under CST Act, when Rule 32(2) of the TNGST Rules, 1959, clearly says that, if any excess occurs as per the order of assessment, such excess shall be adjusted towards any arrears of tax due under the Act from the dealer, or refunded such excess cannot be adjusted towards the tax arrears due under the CST Act, 1956, automatically as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. As regards the claim that a sum of Rs. 18,719 by cheque No. 788573 dated April 20, 1999 has not been taken into account, it is seen from page 11 of the typed set that the assessee has furnished the month-wise statement of tax paid for the year 1998-99, wherein it is shown that the sales, tax due and payable as per return is Rs. 18,719 for January, 1999 but the sales tax paid as per the return is shown as Rs. 37,790 by cheque No. 788573 dated April 20, 1999 for the month of January, 1999. But the contention of the assessee, that the assessing authority has not taken into consideration of the amount of Rs. 18,719 by cheque No. 788573 dated April 20, 1999 is contrary to the abovesaid statement furnished by the assessee.
10. Apparently, the assessing authority has taken into account the tax Rs. 18,719 paid for January, 1999, inasmuch as even according to the petitioner, the total sales tax due as per the return and paid for 1998-99 was only Rs. 46,092 which is inclusive of the amount of Rs. 18,719. In fact, in the final assessment order, the assessing authority has indicated the tax amount paid as Rs. 46,444. Thus, the tax that was paid in excess out of the cheque for Rs. 37,790 might relate to CST for January, 1999 or tax arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to explain with documents as to the nature of payments for the entire cheque amount of Rs. 37,790.
11. In any event, the assessing authority can verify the records and give a reply with reference to the letter dated April 11, 2001, for the correct tax amount paid for the assessment year 1998-99. If there is any incorrectness in the tax paid as claimed by the petitioner, then the assessing authority will issue a rectification order under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, 1969, in regard to the correct tax paid. If there is no change in the tax paid and there is no error in the assessment order, a reply to that effect may be given to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
12. Thus there is no case to interfere, apart from the above directions. It is seen that still the petitioner has got time to file appeal before the first appellate authority against the assessment order and hence it is ordered that the time spent on this proceedings before this Tribunal shall be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal.
The O.P. is disposed of in the above manner.
And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 8th day of May, 2001.