STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMBUJA CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since facts are common in both these petitions, we may notice the facts as emerging from Special Civil Application No.19032 of 2015.

(2.) The State Government has filed this petition challenging the judgement of the Value Added Tax Tribunal dated 08.06.2015 by which, the Tribunal allowed the revision petition of the respondent -assessee.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that, the respondent is a registered dealer and is engaged in manufacture and sale of cement. For the assessment year 2007 -08, the assessee had sold such goods to various customers. At the end of the year in the last quarter, the discount to be given to such customers on the sales was finalized. As a result of which, the assessee gave credit notes to such customers discounting the VAT already collected from them on the basis of the original price. Since this event took place during the financial year 2008 -09, the assessee claimed credit of such discounted sale price and the consequential reduced tax collected from the consumers in such year. The Assessing Officer accepted the formula and framed the assessment accordingly, upon which, the Commissioner took the order of Assessing Officer into suo motu revision. In such order, the Commissioner was of the opinion that the benefit of discounted price could be granted to the dealer only during the same year in which the event took place. Principally, his objection was, therefore, that for the sale transactions which took place in the year 2007 -08 for which the credit notes were issued, the benefit of reduced tax can be granted only during such period and not during the subsequent year. He, therefore, disallowed the adjustments and raised the revised tax demand of Rs. 49.43 lacs. Against this order, the respondent -assessee approached the Tribunal by filing revision petition. In such revision petition, the Tribunal referred to and relied upon the provisions of Sections 60 and 61 of the VAT Act and Rule 43 of the VAT Rules to hold that the procedure adopted by the assessee was legal and proper. The Tribunal rejected the department's stand that in view of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act, such adjustment was not permissible. It is this judgement of the Tribunal which has been challenged in the present petition.