Ms The Tinplate Company Of INDIA Limited Through Its Deputy Manager Banku Bihari Bag vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption on export sales to Nepal for the period 2004-05. The primary ground for denying the exemption was the missing certifications by the Border Customs Officials of India and Nepal on the Nepal invoices. However, the Court noted that the CGST and Central Excise Department, in their counter-affidavit, confirmed that the export was indeed made by the petitioner Company. This fact was also accepted by the State Government in their supplementary counter-affidavit. The Court found no reason to send the matter back to the Assessing Authority again, given the specific stand of the CGST and Central Excise confirming the export. Since the export was confirmed, the petitioner was entitled to the exemption. Consequently, the assessment order dated 31.07.2008, the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), and the Tribunal's judgment dated 20th December, 2018, were set aside. The Court directed the refund of any amount recovered from the petitioner, with statutory interest, within two months.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s The Tinplate Company of India Limited, manufactured and exported electrolytic tinplates worth Rs.4,68,58,433.93 to Nepal during 2004-05. The petitioner claimed exemption from sales tax on these exports, which was disallowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in an order dated 31.07.2008. The appeal against this order was also rejected. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal, in revision, allowed the matter in part, remanding it for reconsideration. The Tribunal noted that while the export was accepted, certifications by Border Customs Officials of India and Nepal were missing on the Nepal invoices. The matter was again decided against the petitioner by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) and upheld by the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the original invoices with certifications were submitted to the Excise Authorities and were no longer in their possession.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax on export sales to Nepal for the period 2004-05, despite the absence of certifications by Indian and Nepalese Border Customs Officials on the Nepal invoices, given that the original invoices were submitted to the Central Excise Department? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning eligibility for exemption under relevant sales tax laws). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the original Nepal invoices, bearing the required certifications, were submitted to the Excise Authorities and were not in their possession. They contended that the absence of these certifications on the copies they possessed should not deny them the exemption, especially since the Central Excise Department acknowledged the export. Revenue's Arguments: The State initially denied the exemption based on the lack of proper documentation as required by law. However, following the submission of a counter-affidavit by the CGST and Central Excise, which confirmed the export, the State agreed to revisit the matter and suggested remitting it to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision.