PRASHANT ELECTRODES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to reassessment notices (annexures P6, 7 and 8) dated August 22, 1992, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, to the petitioner for the period October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987, October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988 and October 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989. The question, therefore is, whether these notices seeking to reassess the petitioner is legal or/and proper ? Facts in brief that led to issuance of these notices need mention infra.

(2.) PETITIONER is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of welding electrodes. It is a dealer duly registered as such under State as also Central Sales Tax Acts.

(3.) FOR the period October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987 the petitioner was assessed by the assessing officer (Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner) by its order dated July 12, 1989 (annexure P2 ). While making the assessment, for this period, one of the main question was, whether the assessing officer was justified in not giving set-off to the petitioner on the tax-paid iron purchased by the petitioner in the light of Notification No. A-5-10-87-ST-V- (47) dated November 17, 1987. Since the contention of petitioner was not accepted by the assessing officer, the petitioner filed a revision being revision No. 65/ R/90 State to Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, against the assessment order. In the revision, the contention of the petitioner was that in the light of notification dated November 17, 1987 they are entitled to get the benefit of set-off in relation to tax-paid goods which they purchased (iron) for manufacture of their goods. This contention found favour to revisionary authority and accordingly, revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by its order dated May 15, 1990 (annexure P3 ). The learned revisionary authority, while setting aside of an order of assessment held that petitioner is entitled to set-off at the rate of 2 per cent on the strength of aforesaid notification. It was also found as a fact that petitioner had purchased tax-paid goods (iron) at the rate of 4 per cent and for which bills had been filed. The revisionary authority, therefore, remanded the case to assessing officer for making fresh assessment after giving the petitioner the benefit of set-off as held by him. Accordingly, the assessing officer passed a fresh assessment order on June 27, 1990 (annexure P4) for the same period, i. e. (October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987) in the light of findings rendered by the revisionary authority and granted the benefit of set-off while determining the taxing liability payable by the petitioner on their turnover for the period in question.