CST & VAT: U.P. VAT - Where Assessing Authority reopened assessment of assessee under section 21 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, since material in existence remained same during both assessment and reassessment proceedings and no additional material or facts had been referred to as per mandate of section 21(1), reassessment proceeding was merely based on change of opinion
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 66 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Uttar Pradesh
v.
Aryaverth Chawl Udyog*
H.L. DATTU, CJI
MADAN B. LOKUR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6714 OF 2009 & OTHERS†
NOVEMBER 27, 2014
Section 21, read with section 3D, of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 and sections 8, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Reassessment - General - Assessee was engaged in business of manufacture of rice from paddy in State of U.P. - It consumed paddy purchased within State of U.P. to manufacture rice at its rice mill and sold rice within State and outside in course of inter-State trade - During year, assessee had purchased paddy within State of U.P. and paid purchase tax - In return filed, it claimed set off under section 15(c) of Central Act in respect of purchase tax already paid on purchase of paddy against tax liability created under Central Act - In original assessment proceedings, Assessing Authority allowed assessee's claim - Thereafter Commissioner had issued a circular dated 29-30-3-2007 and clarified position of law under section 15(c) of Central Act to effect that no deduction in respect of tax deposited by assessee on purchase of paddy within State of U.P. from tax liability on sale of rice under Central Act manufactured from such paddy was permissible - He directed that aforesaid assessment order be revived in consonance with instructions under circular - Since period of limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 21(1) had lapsed, Assessing Authority after obtaining approval from Additional Commissioner under section 21(2) reopened assessment of assessee and passed a reassessment order - Material in existence remained same during both assessment and reassessment proceedings and no additional material or facts had been referred to as per mandate of section 21(1) before initiating reassessment proceeding - Whether initiation of reassessment proceeding was merely based on change of opinion and was bad in law - Held, yes [Para 36] [In favour of assessee]
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 66 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Uttar Pradesh
v.
Aryaverth Chawl Udyog*
H.L. DATTU, CJI
MADAN B. LOKUR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6714 OF 2009 & OTHERS†
NOVEMBER 27, 2014
Section 21, read with section 3D, of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 and sections 8, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Reassessment - General - Assessee was engaged in business of manufacture of rice from paddy in State of U.P. - It consumed paddy purchased within State of U.P. to manufacture rice at its rice mill and sold rice within State and outside in course of inter-State trade - During year, assessee had purchased paddy within State of U.P. and paid purchase tax - In return filed, it claimed set off under section 15(c) of Central Act in respect of purchase tax already paid on purchase of paddy against tax liability created under Central Act - In original assessment proceedings, Assessing Authority allowed assessee's claim - Thereafter Commissioner had issued a circular dated 29-30-3-2007 and clarified position of law under section 15(c) of Central Act to effect that no deduction in respect of tax deposited by assessee on purchase of paddy within State of U.P. from tax liability on sale of rice under Central Act manufactured from such paddy was permissible - He directed that aforesaid assessment order be revived in consonance with instructions under circular - Since period of limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 21(1) had lapsed, Assessing Authority after obtaining approval from Additional Commissioner under section 21(2) reopened assessment of assessee and passed a reassessment order - Material in existence remained same during both assessment and reassessment proceedings and no additional material or facts had been referred to as per mandate of section 21(1) before initiating reassessment proceeding - Whether initiation of reassessment proceeding was merely based on change of opinion and was bad in law - Held, yes [Para 36] [In favour of assessee]
No comments:
Post a Comment