Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Both the revision petitions are directed against common order dated 03.03.2010 passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 1014/2006/Jaipur and Appeal No. 1015/2006/Jaipur, therefore, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the revision petitions are that the dealer/respondent applied for a composition certificate under the provisions of "Composition Scheme for Registered Dealers Dealing in All Kinds of Synthetic Gems and Stones-1999" published vide notification dated 30.04.1999. Assessing officer issued a composition certificate to assessee for a period of one year only. Required amount was deposited by the assessee, however, for subsequent financial years i.e. 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, neither any application was moved for renewal of composition certificate nor any composition certificate was issued by the assessing officer. From the assessment order dated 25.02.2004, relating to the period 01.04.2001- 31.12.2001, it is clear that assessee filed regular return ST 5-A for 'nil' sale. Subsequently, assessee informed the assessing officer vide its letter dated 16.01.2002 that he has closed his business with effect from 31.12.2001. Learned assessing officer thereafter passed assessment order dated 22.01.2003 for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 levying composition amount/tax and interest total Rs. 35,942/- and order dated 25.02.2004 for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2001 levying tax and interest total amount Rs. 38,432/-. Assessing officer while passing the order observed that composition scheme was for five years, therefore, regular return showing 'nil' sale submitted by assessee is not acceptable.
4. Being aggrieved with the same, assessee preferred two appeals before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 20.09.2005 allowed both the appeals and set aside the composition amount/tax as well as interest demanded by assessing officer. Thereafter, Revenue preferred two appeals before Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, but the same were also dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2010, which are impugned in these revision petitions by the Revenue.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.B. Mathur, is that since composition scheme was for five years, therefore, assessing officer was right in levying composition amount/tax and interest thereon, but Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Rajasthan Tax Board both committed an illegality in setting aside orders passed by the assessing officer, therefore, the orders passed by both the appellate authorities are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities for setting aside the orders of assessment passed by assessing officer.
7. Both the appellate authorities have recorded a finding that assessing officer issued composition certificate only for one year i.e. 1999-2000 and there is no reference of disputed period i.e. subsequent financial years i.e. 2000- 2001, 2001-2002 in the composition certificate.
8. Both the appellate authorities also relied upon the judgment of Rajasthan Tax Board in M/s. Urvashi Exports v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Jaipur, reported in 2005 Tax Update Vol. 11 Part 8 Page 317 wherein similar controversy was considered and it was held since composition certificate was issued only for a period of one year and neither any application for renewal of the certificate was filed nor composition certificate was renewed, therefore, assessing officer was not right in passing the assessment orders and Tax Board set aside the assessment order passed by the assessing officer.
9. I have examined the reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities in the impugned orders as well as reasons assigned by Rajasthan Tax Board in M/S. Urvashi Exports case (supra).
10. From the Composition Scheme 1999 it is clear that it came into force with effect from 01.04.1999. Clause 2 of the Composition Scheme 1999 provides that composition amount to.be paid per annum per dealer in lieu of tax shall be for the composition period of five years and shall be determined in the first year as mentioned below Clause 2. Clause 3 further provides that composition certificate shall be renewed each time for a further period of five years on the dealer submitting an application to the assessing authority. There is no dispute in the present case that composition certificate was not issued by assessing officer for five years, but it was issued only for one year i.e. up to 31.03.2000. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the Revenue also.
11. Learned Tax Board in Urvashi Exports case (supra) has observed that when composition certificate was not renewed then it came to an end automatically on the date it expired. The reason assigned by Tax Board appears to be perfectly legal and justified. In case the certificate would have been issued by assessing officer for a period of five years then certainly said scheme would have been treated as in force and applicable on the assessee till an application is filed by him for withdrawal from the composition scheme. Since assessing authority issued a certificate only for one year which came to an end on 31.03.2000, then no assessment should have been made under the said scheme after 31.03.2000 i.e. for period 01.04.2000 onwards.
12. Apart from above, it is relevant to mention that assessing authority in its order dated 25.02.2004 has mentioned that assessee has already filed regular return in ST 5-A wherein he has shown 'nil' sale. This fact clearly shows that there was no sale by the dealer during the disputed period, therefore, no liability of tax arises against him. No cogent reason has been recorded by the assessing officer for not accepting the nil return submitted by the assessee. The only reason which appears for not accepting the nil return ins that composition scheme was for five years, but as mentioned above, the assessing authority itself issued a certificate for a period of one year, therefore, said reasoning recorded by him was not legal and acceptable.
13. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in both the revision petitions and the same are accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
Revisions Dismissed.
Comments