OCEANIC SOLVENT INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the light of the fact that the controversy involved in these petitions lies in a narrow compass, the same are taken up for final hearing today. Hence, Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to waive service of Rule.

(2.) Since common order dated 21st July, 2009 made by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal) is subject matter of challenge in all these petitions and the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are decided by this common judgment.

(3.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing edible oil and oil cakes. The petitioner was assessed for the period 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 vide separate orders made by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Circle-37, Jamnagar. The said orders of assessment were taken in revision by the Joint Commissioner of Sales tax under section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (the Act) and purchases from certain dealers were disallowed on the ground that they were bogus dealers and the said purchases from registered dealers outside the State of Gujarat were treated as purchases from unregistered dealers. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal by way of revision applications. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner remanded the matter to the revising authority to decide the matter on the basis of the said documentary evidence. The revising authority on re-examining the matter and considering the documentary evidence, allowed the claims of purchases from registered dealers outside the State of Gujarat except one Gajanand Traders, Mumbai. Thus the claims of purchases from Gajanand Traders came to be disallowed and the same were considered as purchases from unregistered dealer and demands were raised for the periods 1998-99, 1999-2000 which resulted in reduction of refund for the year 1999-2000. The petitioner, therefore, filed three revision applications before the Tribunal being Revision Applications No.95, 96 and 97 of 2007. According to the petitioner it had supplied entire documentary evidence in support of its claim of genuine purchases as enumerated under paragraph 6 of the petition. That the revising authority merely relied upon the report of the investigating team of the Sales-tax Department without supplying a copy thereof to the petitioner.