Revn.Pet. 34/2014. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberRevn.Pet. 34/2014
Judgement DateMarch 30, 2021
CourtGauhati High Court

Revision Petition No.34 of 2014




( Aj it Sin gh , CJ)

Mr. P Baruah, Mr. Z I slam, Mr. P Das and Mr. SP Sarma, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

Mr.D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondents.

This revision petition is directed against order dated 5.6.2014 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, whereby it has dismissed petitioner’s appeal (Case No.58 STA/ 11) confirming the orders as passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and Assessing Officer.

  1. The petitioner is a partnership firm dealing in sale of cement amongst other things. During Assessment Year 2006-2007, the petitioner had sold cement outside the State of Assam and claimed concessional rate of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act as the sale was made to registered dealers and same was covered by ‘C’ Forms. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept petitioner’s claim of concessional rate of tax in respect of sale made to M/ s Meghrudra Enterprises, Shillong, on the ground that it was not a registered dealer in the item ‘cement’. The petitioner then submitted a photocopy of the application dated 1.8.2006 purported to be made by M/ s. Meghrudra Enterprises to the Sales Tax Department for inclusion of cement in its registration certificate as well as photocopy of its amended registration certificate, wherein by an amendment dated 8.9.2006, item ‘cement’ was shown to have been included in the registration certificate. But, the Assessing Officer was not convinced and he rejected petitioner’s claim of concessional rate of tax @ 4% and levied tax @

    12.5% and also charged interest thereon. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an

    Page 1 of 4

    appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), which was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner then filed another appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue, but it too has been dismissed by the impugned order. I t is in this background, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

  2. The record reveals that the Superintendent of Taxes had a doubt whether M/ s Meghrudra Enterprises was registered for the item ‘cement’ or not. He, therefore, sought confirmation from the Commissioner of Taxes, Meghalaya and in response, Taxation Department of the State of Meghalaya certified that M/ S Meghrudra Enterprises was not eligible to deal in ‘cement item’ and it had fraudulently...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT