AMAN AUTO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Bilaspur in case No.13/KC/10/Prantiy, whereby the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by Commercial Tax Officer, Korba Circle was affirmed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is engaged in sale and purchase of all kinds of Moped and Spare parts and was a registered dealer under the "The Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 as well as The Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act 2005 (henceforth called as "The VAT Act, 2005). The petitioner contends that he was being assessed regularly, however, in Case No.625/2007, the input tax rebate was not allowed on the stock held by him on 01.04.2006 on the ground that Form-74 Stock Statement was not submitted on time. Consequently on the basis of extra demand, interest was also levied under section 19(4)(a) which was eventually affirmed by the order dated 28.08.2010 passed by the revisional authority, which is under challenge. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already purchased certain goods on which the tax was paid, as such, when the transitory period came into play and at that time if the return was not filed as per the C.G. VAT Act, 2005 due to certain unavoidable reasons, the double taxation could not be levied. He would submit that in any case, the meagre penalty could have been imposed to the extent which is prescribed under the statute, however, the levy of interest and tax again cannot be made. He further submits that the period of time which was prescribed for the transitory period is directory in nature. He referred to the judgment rendered in (Siddharth Enterprises v. Nodal Officer,2019 SCCOnLineGujrat 3711) and drawing the analogy would submit that the transitional credit is procedural in nature and restriction of scope of beneficial provision cannot be interpreted as it would defeat all the object of the statute itself. Reference is also made to sections 72 and 73 of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act, 2005 and submits that the Rules called as were made there-under, which are called as Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Rules 2006. Rule 80 prescribes the time limit-whereas Rule 82 only mandates for imposition of fine, therefore, the circumstances can be mitigated to levy the double tax and the interpretation should be made in the like nature which benefits to avoid impose the double tax in the like nature.

(3.) Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the very object of fixing time-limit is to bring an end to allow the new legislation to come into play. It is stated that after transitory period, the finality of claim cannot be arrived at if the time limit is diluted and shifting from old statute to new statute cannot be made. He refers to case law reported in ALD AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD. Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2019 13 SCC 225 and would submit that input tax credit is a concession/benefit in nature and therefore, if the petitioner wanted to avail the benefit then he had to adhere to strict time sense which was prescribed in the statute. He further submits that the statute being fiscal in nature, the interpretation as projected by the petitioner cannot be accepted. He also submits that recently in case of Brand Equity Treatise Limited Versus Union of India,2020 SCCOnLineDelhi 1698, the Delhi High Court while interpreting the GST Rule about the time limit held that it is directory in nature to claim the benefit of taxation of the input tax. The Supreme Court prima facie on an appeal stayed such effect, thereby the very intention had been made clear that the fiscal statutes are mandatory in nature and not directory. Hence, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained.