GODREJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1998-99 raising the following questions of law:

(2.) Aggrieved by the said rejection, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The assessee contended that the filing of form A4 for refund is only directory and not mandatory, consequently, the claim for refund could not be denied. In this background, the assessee placed reliance upon the decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. English Electric Co. of India Ltd., 1992 84 STC 1 . However, the assessee filed copies of A4 returns in complete shape with all details. The first appellate authority, however, rejected the claim of refund on unfructified sales. Thus, he rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the filing of form was only mandatory. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, confirmed the assessment.

(3.) The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal pointed out that going by rule 23(2B) read with section 4D of the Act, it is clear that the time-limit prescribed therein is for mandatory compliance by the assessee and failure to do so would result in rejection of the claim. Quoting the decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. English Electric Co. of India Ltd., 1992 84 STC 1, the Sales Tax Tribunal held that the said decision does not in any manner advance the case of the assessee, since in the decided case, this court confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal remanding the assessment in respect of the turnover not covered by form XVII declaration so as to enable the assessee to file necessary declarations. In other words, this court did not accept the plea of the assessee for concessional levy irrespective of filing form XVII. Thus, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal also referred to the case of Traders and Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1977 40 STC 289 which related to cases of sales return and adjustment of tax. The Tribunal further pointed out that though the law laid down by this court applied to the facts of the case on hand, the assessee, having not adhered to the time-limit prescribed under rule 23(2B), was not entitled to refund. The Tribunal further considered the contention of the assessee with reference to the assessee's contention based on rule 18 of the TNGST Rules. The Tribunal pointed out that it was no doubt that unfructified sale was not a sale and as such, such sale turnover could not be assessed to tax under the provisions of the Act. At the same time, when the Act provided for specific method by providing section 4D on the refund of tax on the unfructified sales, there is the statutory compulsion that the assessee should go by the said provision. It is pointed out that if the specific provision on time-limit is not there in the statute, then the assessee could have requested the assessing officer for exclusion of the turnover as a consequence of the assessment, without any time-limit for claim of refund, it could have claimed the refund. However, in the wake of the existence of special provision on limitation, taking care of the situation like the one presented before this court, the assessee had to comply with the mandatory requirements lest the claim for refund could not be granted. The Tribunal further rejected the contention of the assessee that the mere non-liability to tax would not result in automatic refund. In other words, when there was no taxability under the Act, there was no necessity to go for tax payment. Having considered the claims of the assessee, the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim of the assessee pointed out that the assessee had neither complied with the mandate under section 4D of the TNGST Act for making claim within 30 days from the date of the unfructified sales nor claimed under rule 23(2B) of the TNGST Rules, which provided for alternative relief, viz., making the claim by filing form A4 within 30 days before the due date for filing the return for tax adjustment. In the light of the view thus taken, the appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the present tax case revision.