TAXAP/183/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 183 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= SARDAR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus STATE OF GUAJRAT AND OTHERS ========================================= Appearance : MR HD DAVE for the Appellant MR UR BHATT, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 12/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) TAXAP/183/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Leave to convert this appeal into a Special Civil Application. 2. RULE. Mr.U.R.Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the dispute is about the assessment of Central Sales Tax. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 30.08.2007 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) in Second Appeal No.198 of 2007. 4. The dispute pertains to assessment order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in respect of petitioner's assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) at Vadodara. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The said appellate order came to be challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellate officer was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay as the petitioner did not make any application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal. 5. Mr.Hasit Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, states that the dispute arises only on account of non-production of 'C' TAXAP/183/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT forms, which could not be produced at the time of assessment but which were available with the petitioner when the First Appeal was filed and that therefore, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the petitioner to go back to the assessing authority with the necessary 'C' form. Mr.Dave also invited out attention to the orders dated 03.10.2005 and 30.11.2005 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal Nos.583 and 515 of 2005 respectively in support of his submission that in similar matters, the Tribunal has been doing substantial justice by remanding the matters to the first appellate officer and permitting the appellants to submit proper applications for condonation of delay or for extension of the period. 6. Mr.U.R.Bhatt for the respondents has supported the order of the Tribunal. 7. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.U.R.Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to go back to the assessing officer with the necessary 'C' forms and the assessing officer is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.08.2007 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Second Appeal No.198 of 2007 and the order dated TAXAP/183/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 30.11.2006 of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Vadodara in the petitioner's appeal under Section 65 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are set aside. So also we set aside the assessment order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner for assessment under the Central Sales Tax for the year 2000-01 and remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax for making a fresh assessment for the above year, after permitting the petitioner to produce 'C' forms. Since the petitioner itself must also accept the responsibility for not filing the application for condonation of delay, we direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the respondents in one set. The costs shall be paid within one month from today. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the above extent. Direct service is permitted. (M.S.SHAH, J.) (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole