VAT Appeal No.23 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No.23 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 6, 2010 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S PETRO & AGRO WAYS CHANDIGARH- ...RESPONDENT KHARAR ROAD, VILLAGE DAUN, DISTT. MOHALI 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 12.6.2008, vide which the appeal filed by the respondents 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 a registration certificate under Section 21(5) of the VAT Act was granted in favour of the respondent, i.e. M/s Petro & Agro Ways. 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 upto 16.5.2005, however, in the present case the statements of stocks VAT Appeal No.23 of 2009 -2- of goods taxable at first stage of sale were filed by the respondent on 16.2.2006, which was obviously late. The statements filed by the respondent pertaining to Stock and Trade as on 31.3.2005, were, however, rejected by the designated officer on 3.3.2006. The appeal filed by the respondent was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala vide order Annexure P-3 dated 18.5.2006. 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 16.5.2005, 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 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 petroleum companies and hence he 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. 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 far as the assessee has already paid the entire tax on the purchases made by him to the petroleum company prior to 31.3.2005, mere late filing of statement would not completely disentitle VAT Appeal No.23 of 2009 -3- 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.10,000/- 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