SMT. SUNITA LAKHOTIA Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER, COOCHBEHAR CHARGE AND ORS.
LAWS(ST)-2010-8-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 13,2010

Smt. Sunita Lakhotia Appellant
VERSUS
Sales Tax Officer, Coochbehar Charge And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dipak Chakraborti, Technical Member - (1.) SMT . Sunita Lakhotia, proprietress, carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Sunita Lakhotia having place of business at B. S. Road, Coochbehar, in this petition filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 has challenged the assessment order dated November 26, 2008 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Coochbehar Charge (respondent No. 1) under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the VAT Act") in relation to the assessment period May 10, 2005 to March 16, 2006. During the course of such assessment, respondent No. 1 rejected the input tax credit (in short, "the ITC") claimed by the petitioner for the unregistered period.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner she was held liable to pay tax under the VAT Act with effect from May 10, 2005 and the registration certificate bearing No. 19823178020 under the VAT Act was made valid from March 17, 2006. Shri K. P. Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing along with Shri D. Kar, advocate on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the assessment order as aforesaid mainly on the ground that disallowance of ITC for the period as aforesaid is contrary to the object of the VAT Act and unjustified. It is argued by the learned senior advocate that the provision of Sub -section (1) of Section 22 as well as Clause (19) of Section 2 of the VAT Act restricting the benefit of ITC only to a registered dealer and denying the said benefit to an unregistered dealer although being liable to pay tax under the said Act is ultra vires the VAT Act as such provisions are contrary to the object of the VAT Act.
(3.) IT is admitted by the learned senior advocate that the assessment in question was in relation to the period during which the petitioner was not registered though she incurred liability to pay tax under the VAT Act with effect from May 10, 2005 but at the same time argues that she (petitioner) was a registered dealer on the date when the relevant assessment order was passed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.