JUDICIARY ON GST AUDIT

JUDICIARY ON GST AUDIT

 

Assam Drug Dealers Association and another Vs. State of Assam and others [2006] 143 STC 0084

This is an application filed by the Assam Drug Dealers Association for review of the order dated September 13,2002 passed in W.P.(c) No. 2877 of 2000 [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Assam [2002] 128 STC 537 (Gauhati)] and other similar matters. In the above batch of writ petitions, it was held that the audit made by the concerned auditor under the Income-tax Act, if any, shall be deemed to be sufficient compliance of section 10A of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the audit report under rule 19A.

Dr. Saraf has submitted that the petitioners have no grievance and no appeal has been filed by the either parties against the said order. However, in the impugned judgment, it was further pro-vided that a report in forms XXXI and XXXI-A as required under rule 19A be furnished along with the said report. It is, therefore, submitted that it needs to be clarified. In view of finding that the audit report under the Income-tax Act shall be deemed to be an audit report under the General Sales Tax Act, the certificate in forms XXXI and XXXI-A will not be required to be given by the accountant/auditor and required information in form XXXI-A may be allowed to be given by the dealer. I find that the impugned judgment was passed reading down section 10A, so that it does not burden the dealers for under going audit of their accounts twice, once for the purpose of income-tax and again for the purpose of General Sales Tax Act.

 In view of the above decision, it is provided that the form XXXI-A shall be furnished by the dealer. So far form XXXI is concerned the audit report/certificate given by accountant shall be sufficed. The concerned Sales Tax Department may take steps for modification of the form.

Bal Chand Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and another [2009] 025 VST 0420

The assessment of the petitioner-dealer in respect of the year 1991-92 was framed on September 17, 1993. On September 26, 1995, a notice was issued by the revisional authority under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 on the basis of an audit objection but no action was taken. On June 18, 1996, the Assessing Authority intimated the petitioner-dealer that definite information was in his possession leading to the belief that the turnover of his business was liable to reassessment and a reassessment order was passed on April 23, 2001 raising an additional demand under section 4B of the Act. Petitioner filed a writ on this issue.

Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the assessment in respect of assessment year 1991-92 attained finality on September 17, 1993, when the initial assessment was framed. The petitioner-dealer filed its return in accordance with the law as it stood at the relevant time. The change of law subsequent to the finalization of assessment on September 17, 1993 would not constitute a basis for framing reassessment. The law did not permit reassessment on the ground that an audit objection had been raised and such an objection would not constitute "definite information" within the meaning of section 11A of the Act. Reassessment under section 11A of the Act was also not permissible on the basis of a subsequent interpretation by the court.

Follow Us on