The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Larson and Toubro Ltd.

These applications seek a direction to the Tribunal to forward the questions stated to be questions of law for opinion and answer of this Court.

These questions are formulated at para 7 page 4 of the paper books.

The dealer, Respondent herein is a multi-locational and multiproduct company operating at national and international level. It is engaged in manufacturing of heavy engineering equipments. The varied activities of the dealer are set out and then it is urged that for financial year 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003 the Assessing Officer passed separate assessment orders dated 17th December, 2007 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively (for short "BST" and "CST"), resulting in refund of Rs. 1,74,52,863/- under the BST and demand being raised at Rs. 5,06,76,988/- under the CST. The Assessing Officer under the CST disallowed claim of exemption of Sales Tax at High Sea Sales on the ground that the Respondent dealer did not produce bill of lading and other important documents to prove such a sale. He therefore treated the sales as interstate and levied Sales Tax at higher rate in the absence of declaration in Form ''C''.

Aggrieved by such assessment orders, the Respondent dealer preferred First Appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) I, Mumbai City Division, Mumbai. He confirmed the decision of the Assessment Officer.

The matter was carried to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal by the dealer, which partly allowed the Second Appeals. The Tribunal confirmed the tax levied on interstate sales, but set aside the levying of custom duty at 8% by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax and which application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 27th July, 2012.

It is in the above circumstances, reference application Nos. 59 of 2012 and 60 of 2012 arising out of the two Second Appeals came to be preferred by the Revenue. These applications have also been dismissed by the impugned order of the Tribunal.

We have heard Ms. Palsuledesai appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of these applications. With her assistance, we have perused the relevant part of the assessment order, the order of the First Appellate Authority and that of the Tribunal. The only issue was whether the Custom Duty was recovered in the sale prices which were charged by the dealer. In other words, whether this component was part of the sales prices of the goods as charged and recovered by the dealer. In relation to that, finding of fact is that the assumption of the Assessing Officer is incorrect. The Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for upholding the claim of the Assessee and to this limited extent. It is found that the purchaser of the goods M/s. Raja Crown and Cans Pvt. Ltd., Chennai was to pay the Custom Duty. The document styled as High Sea Sales Agreement dated 10th May, 2002 has been looked into for a limited purpose as to whether the Custom Duty was paid by the dealer before us. The Assessing Authority as also the Appellate Authority ought to have recorded a finding that there is no evidence to support the fact that the Custom Duty was paid by the Assessee before the delivery of the goods, namely "Quality Prime Tinplates to M/s. Raja Crown and Cans Pvt. Ltd. If there is no evidence pointed out to support this fact, then we do not see how the Tribunal committed any error in allowing the Appeals partly. The levy of Sales Tax at 8% on Custom Duty in the present case was not justified and rightly deleted. These are not findings which would raise any wider questions and particularly of law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances and looking into the documents produced, the Tribunal concluded that there is no evidence to support the concurrent finding as rendered by the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. In the absence of all this, their conclusion was not upheld. This aspect has not only been gone into in details in the second appellate order, but also in the order passed on the rectification applications and the reference applications. The said finding does not raise any question of law for being answered and opined upon by this Court. The Applications are devoid of merits and are dismissed.