VAT Appeal No.6 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No.6 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 6, 2010 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S BHARAT IRON TRADING CO. ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. PIYUSH KANT JAIN, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB MR. K.L. GOYAL, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. MANOJ KUMAR ROHILLA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The State of Punjab has filed this appeal challenging the judgement passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab dated 13.6.2008, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the delay in filing the Stock & Trade Statements under Section 14 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'VAT Act') was condoned. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s Bharat Iron Trading Co. is a registered dealer under Section 21(5) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. Under Section 14(1) of the VAT Act, the respondent was entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as 'ITC') in respect of tax paid by them under the provisions of Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The aforementioned statement was to be filed on or before 15.5.2005, however, in the present case the statements of stocks of goods taxable at first stage of VAT Appeal No.6 of 2009 -2- sale were filed by the respondent on 31.5.2005, 29.6.2005 and finally on 31.10.2005, which was obviously late. The statements filed by the respondent pertaining to Stock and Trade as on 31.10.2005, were, however, rejected by the designated officer on 2.11.2005. The appeal filed by the respondent was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), JalandharDivision, Jalandhar vide order Annexure P-3 dated 29.1.2008. However, the appeal filed before the Tribunal was accepted and the belated statement submitted by the respondent was entertained and the claim was allowed. Counsel for the State has submitted that the assessee could file the statement upto 15.5.2005, and even if the last date is taken to be 21.6.2005, i.e. the date when the Punjab VAT Rules were notified, still the last date for filing of the statement would have been 4.8.2005 and hence the statement filed was belated. It is thus submitted that the impugned judgement (Annexure P-4) is liable to be set aside. Mr. Goyal, counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the assessee has already paid the entire tax on the purchases made by them prior to 31.3.2005, to the competent authority and hence the respondent cannot be asked to pay the tax twice. Learned counsel further submits that the provisions of Section 14(1) of the VAT Act, are directory in nature. He has placed reliance on Stelco Strips Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2009) 19 VAT and Service Tax Cases 498 (P&H), wherein it has been held that similar provisions under the VAT Act would be directory. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and are of the considered opinion that as the assessee has already paid the entire tax on the purchases made by him to the competent authority prior to 31.3.2005, VAT Appeal No.6 of 2009 -3- mere late filing of statement would not completely disentitle them to file the statement. However, they can always be burdened with heavy costs. In the present case, the assessee has been held liable to pay the costs of Rs.3000/- by the Tribunal. In our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be taxed twice as this is not the intention of the legislature. Moreover, no other substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE January 6, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE