JAGATDAL JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CORPORATE DIVISION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS present application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, has been filed challenging the order dated December 30, 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, in revision. The petitioner, as disclosed in the application, manufactured jute goods in its factory at Jagatdal, 24 Parganas (North). The goods so manufactured were sold in West Bengal and some other States. Declaring its gross turnover at Rs. 36,51,03,199 and paying tax of Rs. 31,10,776 at concessional rate, the petitioner submitted a return for the 4 quarters ending on March 31, 2003. Following submission of the return, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division, initiated an assessment proceeding. By the said order of assessment, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes raised an additional demand of Rs. 9,96,671. In making such an assessment, the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claim under section 17(3)(a)(xi) and 17(2)(b)(ii) for non -production of requisite declaration form. In estimating the gross turnover at Rs. 38,98,38,957, the sale price of old motor cars was taken into account.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division. Affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellate authority dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a revisional application before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Declaration in form F was produced to vindicate its stand for claim of stock transfer of goods. Pro forma invoice was also produced for the purpose of proving that old motor cars had been disposed of. In modifying the order of assessment, the Additional Commissioner viewed that the claim for stock transfer ought to have been allowed in view of production of form F, the Additional Commissioner, however, rejected the prayer for deduction of account on sale of old motor cars.

(3.) DWELLING on the issue of rejection of the claim preferred under section 17(3)(a)(xi) read with rule 52 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, it is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that there was no valid reason for rejection of the claim even after production of requisite form Nos. 10 and 12. The purchasing dealer, it is submitted, cannot compel the selling dealer to produce the eligibility certificate. Rejection of the claim of relief under section 17(3)(a)(xi) for non -production of eligibility certificate of the selling dealer is totally unwarranted, as contented by Mr. Chakraborty.