Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 359 of 2019 Revisionist :- M/S Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Mahajan,Amit Mahajan Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Noida in Second Appeal No.599 of 2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 (Central). By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and remitted the matter to the assessing authority to examine Forms F submitted in the first appeal proceedings. However, in view of other observations and directions contained in that order, the assessee could not avail the benefit of Forms-D, similarly submitted. Hence this revision.
3. In the present revision, the following question of law has been pressed:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order passed by the First Appellate Authority denying the benefit of Form-D issued to the Applicant by the Ministry of Defence despite the same having been filed u/s. 12-B of the Act for admission of additional evidence?"
4. During the assessment year in question, the assessee engaged in trading in imported consumer goods, such as computers, monitors, mobile phones, laptops, steel cameras etc. It claimed to have brought goods inside the state, against Forms-F. Further, it claimed to have sold such goods, amongst others, to Central and State Government at concessional rate of tax, against Forms-D.
5. It is an admitted fact that Forms-F and D had not been submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, but later, during the first appeal proceedings, along with an application filed under Section 12-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first appeal authority rejected that application.
6. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's further appeal. While the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the assessing authority and directed the assessee's assessing authority to examine the Forms-F as those forms were found to have been issued subsequent to the assessment order dated 31.03.2009, it rejected the claim with respect to Forms-D.
7. Learned counsel for the assessee also states, upon such remand, the assessee has been given benefit to Forms-F. However, with respect to Form-D, the Tribunal observed that that benefit would not be available as they had been issued on 29.09.2006, i.e. almost three years before the assessment order came to be passed on 31.03.2009. Thus the assessee remains subjected to tax at the full rate on sales made to Government.
8. The disputed tax is about Rs. 8,00,000/-. The instant revision had been filed with a long delay. The same was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is shown to have been paid. It has also been stated that the reason for the delay was also the reason for non- submission of Form-D on time i.e. on account of shifting of accounts of the applicant company from one firm to another. It is, thus been explained that the statutory Forms-D were not in the hands of the person pursuing the assessment proceedings. The Forms D could be submitted much later owing to the change of the firm engaged by the applicant company.
9. Inasmuch as, the benefit being claimed by the assessee was restricted to sales made to Government/s that too against Forms-D, a more pragmatic view should have been taken in such circumstances. Though the Tribunal may be theoretically correct that in the first place, the assessee should have furnished Forms D in the original assessment proceedings, however, all that the revenue authorities are required to verify is whether such forms had been issued by the Government against purchases made by them.
10. Looking at the peculiar facts of this case, the view taken by the Tribunal is very harsh. Their being no other allegation, at this stage, the present revision deserves to be allowed. The assessee has already paid heavy costs as directed being about 1/4 of the disputed tax amount.
11. Thus the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it has refused to remand the matter on question of Forms D, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the assessing authority to make necessary inquiries with respect to Forms-D, the original of which had been submitted by the assessee before the first appeal authority. Such exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.
12. The revision is accordingly, allowed in its peculiar facts.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Saif