- (1.) THIS writ application has been filed against an order dated August 22, 2003 Reported as Dolat Electric Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer, Ezra Street Charge [2005] 141 STC 282 (WBTT) passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') holding that the resistance stainless steel wire (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') is not declared goods falling under sub-item (xv) of item (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 1956 Act') on which tax was payable at the rate of four per cent. By the said order the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to reopen the assessment for the four quarters ended on March 31, 1999 under Section 46A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 1994 Act') to assess sales of the said goods under the residuary entry as goods not elsewhere specified attracting higher rate of tax at twelve per cent.
(2.) FACTS revealed that the petitioners imported the said goods from China containing higher chromium and aluminium content. The said goods were assessed by the customs authorities under Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, dealing with iron and steel goods, heading 72.23 as 'wire of stainless steel'. Accordingly, import duty was levied thereon. The petitioners realised four per cent sales tax applicable to the declared goods on sale of the said goods from its buyers. The assessment was deemed to have been made by the authority for the fourth quarter ended March 31, 1999 under Section 46A of the 1994 Act accepting the returns filed on the basis that the said goods are declared goods liable to be assessed at the rate of four per cent. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, reopened the said assessment by an order dated September 20, 2001 on the ground that the goods could not be treated as declared goods and thereby are liable to be assessed under residuary head attracting the higher rate of tax at twelve per cent.
(3.) FURTHER the case of the petitioners is that in the case of a sister concern of the petitioner, which had also imported the said goods an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, on December 6, 2001 holding that the said goods were declared goods and there is no reason to reopen the deemed assessment made in his case under the 1994 Act and in that case, it was held that the said goods were declared goods attracting four per cent tax.;