COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. ARROW WEBTEX LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the State of Maharashtra is seeking quashing of an order passed on August 7, 2013, by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal in Rectification Application No. 11 of 2013 and praying that the order passed in Second Appeal No. 202 of 2012 dated September 12, 2012, be restored. The Commissioner of Sales Tax -petitioner before us states that the respondent -assessee is a registered dealer carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of printed as well as woven labels. In the year 2002 -03, labels worth Rs. 65,30,291 were sold to manufacturers of garments in the State of Tamil Nadu. The manufacturers export ready -made garments to foreign buyers and the labels sold were thus stitched to these garments. The dealer claimed that the sale of labels does not attract the tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and, therefore, it is exempted from filing any declaration in form H. The transaction is treated as deemed sales in the course of export. The assessing officer, it appears, accepted this position but on account of certain objections by the internal audit, the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune Zone, Pune on April 21, 2011, set aside this order and view taken by the assessing officer. Against the order of the Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, Pune Zone, Pune, dated April 21, 2011, Appeal No. 202 of 2011 was filed before the Tribunal by the dealer. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal partly on September 12, 2012. It quashed the revisional order of the Joint Commissioner and remanded the case back to the Joint Commissioner with liberty to the dealer to produce proof of export sales against form H and expected the Joint Commissioner to verify and scrutinise it.

(2.) The respondent was of the view that this order of the Tribunal contains apparent mistakes and errors. They are on the face of the record and do not require any elaborate and detailed discussion. Therefore, by way of a rectification application No. 66 of 2013, the dealer sought rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal. This application was withdrawn subsequently by the dealer.

(3.) Later on, he filed another application seeking rectification and this time, the Tribunal accepted it and by the impugned order, recalled the initial direction of remand passed on September 12, 2012.