Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Assistant Commissioner Spl. Circle vs M/S Rural Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd on 20 March, 2017
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Revision No. 137 / 2016
Assistant Commissioner Special Circle, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/S Rural Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Arinapanth,
Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Bhansali
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order 20/03/2017
1. This revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 84 of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short "the VAT Act") is directed against order dated 29.2.16 passed by the Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner Assessing Authority under Section 83 of the VAT Act against the order dated 25.7.10 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Officer, Udaipur, setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority, stands dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that for the assessment year 2005-06, the respondent dealer declared the inter state sales of railway sleepers to the North Western Railways against the 'D' Form. The Assessing Authority passed the assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "CST Act"), assessing the liability of tax @ 4%. Later, on the basis of the audit objection, the Assessing Authority passed the assessment order under Section (2 of 4) [CR-137/2016] 33 of the VAT Act, treating the sales in question as sale within the state and assessed the liability of tax under VAT Act @ 5% and created a demand for the difference of amount of tax. The legality of the order passed was questioned by the respondent dealer by way of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, under Section 82 of the VAT Act. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.7.10. Aggrieved thereby, the Assessing Authority preferred an appeal before the Tax Board, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the 'D' form was issued by Zonal Office of the Railway at Jaipur and therefore, apparently, the sales made by the respondent dealer was sale within the State and thus, the Assessing Authority was justified in rectifying the order passed. Learned counsel submitted that no material was placed on behalf of the respondent dealer to show that the sales in question were the sales made in course of inter state trade or commerce and thus, the finding arrived at by the D.C. (Appeals), affirmed by the Tax Board is ex facie capricious and perverse.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
5. Indisputably, the respondent assessee supplied the railway sleepers to the Railways against the 'D' form. Merely because, the 'D' forms were issued by the Zonal Office, North Western Railway, Jaipur, the sales made cannot be presumed to be inter state sale. It has come on record that pursuant to the purchase order, the (3 of 4) [CR-137/2016] goods have moved from State of Rajasthan to another State and accordingly, the Assessing Authority earlier framed the assessment order under CST Act, 1956. A bare perusal of the order impugned passed by the Assessing Authority reveals that the rectification proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of audit objection without application of mind. It is pertinent to note that the assessee contested the proceedings initiated by filing a reply to the notice and clarified as to why the sales effected are inter state sale exigible to tax under CST Act. But as noticed by the Tax Board, the Assessing Officer even did not care to consider the reply filed. As a matter of fact, the Assessing Authority has merely recorded its ipse dixit that the sales in question are sale within the State without there being any material to establish the conclusion arrived at. No liability of tax could have been imposed under VAT Act, while rectifying the order passed under CST Act, presuming the sales in question to be sale within State. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tax Board has committed no error in affirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
6. No question of law arises for consideration of this court out of the order impugned passed by the Tax Board.
7. In the result, the revision petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.
(SANGEET LODHA)J. Aditya/ (4 of 4) [CR-137/2016]