Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab challenging the order dated May 22, 2006 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal (for short "the VAT Tribunal") in rectification application No. 11 of 2006 -07 whereby the VAT Tribunal accepted the rectification application filed by the respondent -dealer.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that the respondent -dealer is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of vanaspati ghee. The final product is sold either within the State or outside the State of Punjab. Some of the manufactured goods are also transferred to other States by way of transfer other than by way of sales. For the assessment year 2000 -01, the dealer disclosed gross turnover of Rs. 28,12,60,019.67 in its return. Out of the gross turnover, the amount of Rs. 25,21,85,896.94 representing inter -State stock transfer was deducted by the dealer claiming the transaction to be against "F forms". While framing the assessment, the assessing authority accepted 66 statutory "F forms" submitted by the dealer to claim deduction of Rs. 25,19,16,609.37 as transfers otherwise than by way of sales, vide order dated August 14, 2001.
(3.) It is further pleaded that after the assessment was framed, it came to the notice of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Patiala, from the sales tax authorities at Delhi, where stock transfers have been made, that the registration certificates of the dealers to whom the goods had been transferred stood cancelled and the "F forms" so submitted by the dealers were not even issued to them. Considering this to be an error in the order of assessment, the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising powers conferred on him under Sec. 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the State Act") issued suo motu notice dated February 22, 2002 to the dealer for examining the legality and propriety of the order of assessment dated August 14, 2001. Reason mentioned in the notice was that on examination of records, it was revealed that the claim of consignment sales against "F forms" was not found genuine. Show cause notice issued to the dealer was duly replied to by the assessee raising various pleas which included want of jurisdiction on the part of the revisional authority to issue notice under Sec. 21 of the State Act. The revisional authority after considering the contentions of the dealer recorded a finding that the "F forms" submitted by the dealer, were found to be forged on enquiry from Delhi authorities. Accordingly, it was opined that the deduction granted to the dealer, treating the transfers as otherwise than by way of sales, was absolutely inadmissible. In this factual matrix, the revisional authority vide order dated July 30, 2002 remanded the matter to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana -III to make inquiries and decide the case within a period of two months. Against the order passed by the revisional authority, the dealer preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, which was rejected vide order dated July 22, 2003. It is also mentioned that Civil Writ Petition No. 3441 of 2004 filed by the petitioner thereafter, to challenge the order passed by the revisional authority as well as the Sales Tax Tribunal, was also dismissed by this court vide order dated March 2, 2004. It was thereafter that an order was passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Revisional Authority, Ludhiana -III under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Central Act") thereby rejecting the claim of transfer of goods other than by way of sales on account of defective "F forms". In appeal against the order of revisional authority, the dealer failed before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, however, in rectification application moved by the dealer, the plea of the assessee was accepted. It is this order of the VAT Tribunal which is impugned by the Revenue in the present writ petition.;