Dipak Chakraborti - (1.) THE applicant, Maple Exports Private Limited (in short, "the applicant -company")/ is a company falling within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 13, Elgin Road, 2A and 2B, 2nd Floor, Kolkata 700 020 and applicant No. 2 is the authorized signatory of the applicant -company. In this application, they have challenged the assessment order dated September 22, 2008 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhawanipore Charge (in short, "the assessing authority") in relation to the assessment period four quarters ending on March 31, 2006 and the order dated March 31, 2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolkata South Circle (in short, "the appellate authority") on appeal preferred by the applicant -company arising out of the assessment order dated September 22, 2008.
(2.) THE applicant -company is a manufacturer of leather goods as well as exporter of such goods. According to it, it is an export oriented unit within the meaning of the export and import policy as formulated under section 5 of the Foreign Trade and Development Regulation Act, 1992. This fact has not been disputed by the respondent -authorities. During the course of assessment, export sales to the extent of Rs. 31,29,33,355.12 under section 16(1)(b) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the VAT Act") was allowed. But the assessing authority disallowed the entire claim of input -tax rebate as made by the petitioner -company under section 22 of the VAT Act on the ground that the petitioner -company did not maintain proper books of accounts as required under section 63of the VAT Act. It was specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner -company did not maintain input -tax account, input -tax credit account. The assessing authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the ground of non - submission of final accounts within the prescribed time. The assessment order dated September 22, 2008 was challenged by the petitioner -company before the appellate authority which was registered under Appeal Case No. A - 71/BH/08 -09. Before the appellate authority, it claimed export sales to the tune of Rs. 31,80,37,575 against the export sales of Rs. 31,29,33,355.12 as determined and entertained by the assessing authority. The revised claim was not allowed and on the contrary, the appellate authority included an amount of Rs. 1,87,858 (representing basic sale price of trimming machine not shown in the return) with Rs. 31,29,33,355 (turnover assessed by the assessing authority) and determined the turnover of the petitioner -company at Rs. 31,31,21,213. It was held by the appellate authority that the amount of Rs. 1,87,858 would be liable to be taxed at four per cent. In his order dated March 31, 2009, the appellate authority further observed that even at the appellate stage, the petitioner -company failed to produce "a true and up -to -date account of the value and quantity of the goods purchased, manufactured, sold or held by him in stock or any true and up -to -date amount of his input -tax, input -tax credit and output tax credit. So the STO's order of disallowance of the claim of the ITC rebate is upheld". The appellate authority also held that the applicant -company was liable to pay purchase tax and interest in addition to the penalty imposed by the assessing authority.
(3.) SRI B. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant -company, challenged the observations made by the assessing as well as by the appellate authority and submitted that all these allegations were untrue. In fact before us, the learned advocate produced ledger copies showing purchase of leathers, consumables and packing materials on payment of VAT at applicable rates. It was strenuously argued by the learned advocate that when the petitioner was maintaining all the details, there was no reason for it to hold back those records and documents even at the cost of being deprived of the due input -tax credit. It was further argued that the company being an export oriented unit and that the assessing authority allowed export sales the question of charging output tax did not arise at all. He also questioned the propriety of levying of purchase tax without even ascertaining the quantum of purchase made by the applicant -company from unregistered dealers. He also questioned the propriety of imposition of penalty.;