LAWS(GAU)-2007-5-36

JYOTI FORGE AND FABRICATION Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On May 17, 2007
JYOTI FORGE AND FABRICATION Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the appellate order passed by the Assam Board of Revenue upholding the revisional order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in execution of works contract. For the year 1996-97, the petitioner had submitted its return of turn over before the Respondent No. 4 i. e. the Superintendent of Taxes as per the provisions of the Act. In the return so submitted by the petitioner, a claim was made for adjustment of excess payment allegedly claimed for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 against the tax liability of the year 1996-97. The petitioner also claimed adjustment of tax deducted at source. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the notice issued by the Respondent No. 4, it had produced the books of Accounts and other relevant documents in support of return so filed. According to the petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 examined and verified the books of accounts and on being satisfied, the claim for adjustment made by the petitioner was allowed and the assessment order was passed on 4. 12. 1997 under Section 17 (4) of the Act determining total value of the work contract at Rs. 1,19,88,147/- and tax payable thereon at Rs 1,11,437/ -.

(3.) AGAINST the tax liability, the Respondent No. 4 granted credit of total tax paid at Rs. 1,07,834/- being Rs. 61,757/- by way of adjustment of excess tax paid for the periods in question. After expiry of 2 years from the date of assessment, the Respondent No. 4 issued notice on 30. 12. 1999 intimating the petitioner that the adjustment of excess tax paid for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 against tax dues of the year 1996-97 was made in contravention of Section 30 of the Act. The petitioner was directed to produce the books of accounts on 7. 1. 2000 and was asked to clarify as to why rectification of assessment under Section 37 of the Act should not be made.