COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. LAXMI ROLLER FLOOR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Instant sales tax revision petition has been filed by the petitioner department assailing the order dated 24.3.2003 by which the appeal of the department was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent is a manufacturer of cereal and is running a flour mill. During the Assessment Year 1999 -2000, the respondent deposited tax as prescribed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 at the rate of 4% and the same was deposited in the Government Treasury account. However, the petitioner passed an order by accepting the rate of tax at the rate of 4% but levied surcharge on the said tax amounting to Rs. 29,268/ - and interest thereon. It is the claim of the respondent that there was no proper show cause notice or claim of the petitioner about levy of the additional surcharge. This was levied in violation of principles of natural justice which was not proper on the part of the Assessing Officer. It was further pleaded that under the provisions of the Act, surcharge could not have been levied as it is inter -State sale and as per notification dated 7.3.1994.

(2.) THE matter was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). It was claimed that the respondent assessee is a registered dealer and it was the claim of the assessee respondent that as per notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan dated 7.3.1994, the sales tax is only leviable at the rate of 4% u/s. 8(5) and u/s. 5 of the Act and even requirement of "Form C" was not there and no surcharge is leviable in a case like this. Thus, in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied and directed to delete the surcharge levied Rs. 29,268/ -. Dis -satisfied with the deletion of surcharge, the Assessing Officer carried the matter in further appeal before the Tax Board who was also satisfied that there is no justification for levying of additional surcharge and for the reasons assigned therein, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed and accordingly the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have gone through the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner department and have gone through the impugned orders. In my view, both, the Tax Board as also the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), are justified in coming to the correct conclusion. The assessee had deposited the due tax in accordance with notification dated 7.3.1994 bearing No. 929, F. 4(8) FD/Gr. -4/94 -71 wherein in the case of assessee and similarly situated dealers tax rate of 4%, was prescribed. It is also stated in the said notification that even there is no requirement of filing of "Form C" when the sale is outside the State of Rajasthan. Both the appellate authorities came to the correct conclusion that u/s. 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act and sections 4 and 5 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the tax rate is only 4% and no additional surcharge is leviable.