ANTARTICA LTD. Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MANICKTALA CHARGE AND OTHERS
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Joint Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Manicktala Charge And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTI, J. -
(1.) BY this application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioner, M/s. Antarctica Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1A, Vidyasagar Street, Kolkata 700 009, has assailed the order dated July 9, 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Manicktala Charge, in rejecting the application for way -bill under rule 110 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.
(2.) Mr. B. P. Chakraborti, learned advocate of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner -company imports "coated carbon board, ITC duplex board, aquas varnish, poster paper, kraft paper, printing adhesive materials", etc., from outside West Bengal for which way -bills are necessary to produce at the check -post for valid import. Such goods are to be used for its own purpose at the Falta special economic zone where the packaging units of the petitioner -company is situated. The learned advocate has alleged that respondent No. 1 did not issue the requisite number of waybills as prayed for by the petitioner on all the occasions for this or that reason which compels the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for necessary order. On the last occasion also the petitioner approached this Tribunal under RN -270 of 2010 and the Tribunal was pleased to direct respondent No. 1 to issue 11 (eleven) way -bills by April 23, 2010. Thereafter, on June 28, 2010 the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 to submit application for way -bills, but could not submit the same and then it sent the application by speed post on July 1, 2010. The contention of the learned advocate is that the petitioner filed up -to -date returns and no tax is lying due from the dealer. Moreover, the petitioner produced copy of invoices/ letters in support of immediate requirement of way -bills, but no such waybills are issued though the application was filed for 30 (thirty) way -bills to meet the immediate requirement. The learned advocate has prayed for issuing direction to respondent No. 1 to issue sufficient number of way -bills to meet the immediate requirement of the petitioner as per copy of invoices/letters annexed with the application filed before this Tribunal.
(3.) MR . A. K. Nath, learned State Representative, has strongly denied that respondent No. 1 refused to accept the application for way -bills. The learned State Representative has filed a fact -sheet signed by respondent No. 1 which includes a letter addressed to the petitioner (vide, memo No. 523 dated May 10, 2010) wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioner failed to produce (1) production register of domestic unit, (2) Sales and purchase registers, (3) goods movement challans -both in and out, (4) stock register for inspection. As such, until the petitioner satisfy the claim of (1) non -taxable sales, (2) produces the production register for domestic units and SEZ and (3) ensure an inspection at SEZ unit, no further way -bills will be issued. The learned State Representative has affirmed that since there was no compliance with the above three conditions by the petitioner, the application for way -bills was rejected by an order dated July 9, 2010.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.