I am enclosing a xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, requesting him to take appropriate action against the concerned erring officers, as suggested by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

In this case interest u/s. 36(3)(b) levied was deleted by the Tribunal. The STO once again levied the interest by boldly suggesting that Hon'ble Tribunal erred in deleting the interest and levied again. Such unlawful action by the STO was brought to the notice of the Commissioner requesting him to quash the proceeding. However, the Commissioner instead of quashing the proceedings put the seal of approval. The Hon'ble Tribunal while deleting interest, passed strictures on such action and ... recommended appropriate action.

It is generally noticed that Department is reluctant to take corrective action and the Officers brushing aside legal position dare to pass unlawful action to harass the assessee.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
P. V. Surte
Date : 3-1-2007

The Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

Sir,

I am reproducing final order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

Order

S.A. No. 971 of 2005 is allowed and the impugned order of the 1st Appellate Authority as well as order of assessing officer dated 31-3-2001 imposing/levy of interest u/s. 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Act, supra, are set aside. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for appropriate action in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
(G.G. Kochrekar) Member	(S.G. Tambe) Member	(S.R. Khanzode) Member

I request your goodself to intimate the undersigned action taken.

I would like to point out that at the initial stage, assessee pointed out the judgment of the MSTT in the case of Abhishek Steel S.A. No. 687 of 1990 dt. 23-8-1991 the ratio of which is to levy interest only on ascertaining good part and bad part.

The interest u/s. 36(3)(b) is leviable on the outstanding dues @ 3% p.m. The Departmental authorities bypassing those provisions levied interest at 100%.

For no valid reasons proceedings kept lingering till October 2006. The assessment period ended on 22-10-1987 matter ended on 20-10-2006. For the sake of Rs. 3,000/- proceedings continued for 19 years which is national waste of time, energy and money on the part of assessee as well as Department. Ignoring legal position Department played a 2nd inning causing harassment to the assessee. This is misuse of powers.

I request you to consider these points to see that judicial discipline is observed with due respect to the Higher authority as held by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corp. Ltd. (1991) (55) ELT 433.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(P. V. Surte)

Date : 14th February, 2007

Shri M. S. Deora
Tax Consultant
49, Bhupen Chambers, 2nd Floor,
9, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

Kindly refer your above-referred letter dated 31-1-2007. In this letter you have requested to delegate powers to some Joint Commissioner. This is to inform you that the Government has issued G. R. dated 5-2-2007, for delegation of powers of administrative relief to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The applications for Adm. Relief will now be disposed of on merits.

Sd/-
(N. Y. Ansari)
Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (H.Q.)2,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai

Date : 11.12.2006

To,

The Commissioner of Sales Tax
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.

Dear Sir,

We refer to above. As per section 10 of BST Act,1959, Resale Tax (RST) was leviable from 1-4-2001. The said RST attracted on drugs and medicines covered by entry C-II-37. However the Government granted exemption for the same as per entry A-146 issued under Section 41.

From 1-5-2002 the section 10 was recast. The turnover of drugs and medicines is given deduction in main section 10 itself vide sub-section (iv) of section 10. Thus, from 1-5-2002 also the RST is not payable on drugs and medicines. Since the deduction is given in main section 10 itself the entry A-146 was redundant and hence it was deleted with effect from 1-5-2002 on 22-7-2004 vide STA 2004/CR-24/Taxation-2 dt.22-7-2004.

From legal position explained above it is clear that RST is not attracted on drugs and medicines either from 1-4-2001 or from 1-5-2002. However certain assessing authorities are not accepting above position on the ground that the since entry A-146 is deleted retrospectively, the RST is applicable from 1.5.2002. They forget the effect of section 10(iv) referred to above. The issues are made up in individual cases one by one. We herewith enclose copies of notices received by one of the medicine dealers, as an example.

Under above circumstances we request your goodself to issue a clarification about above legal position. Since the issue is urgent, we request for early clarification and oblige.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

C. B. THAKAR
(Advocate)

Dated: 6th December, 2006

To,

The Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra State.
Respected Sir,

Hon. Bombay High Court has pronounced the above referred judgment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1959 in case of M/s.Shiv Shyam Sales Enterprises [34 MTJ 544](Copy enclosed).

In this judgment it has been observed that revision order passed under section 57 is not an "Original Order" and therefore no appeal under section 55 can lie against the revision order. As a consequence thereof the appellate authorities may hold such appeals as not maintainable.

Since the inception of the BST Act,1959, both Revenue and the Trade have maintained the position that the appeals do lie against the revision orders. The above decision may undo the settled position. In such circumstances, only remedy available to the dealers will be to file a writ petition against the revision order. This would put them in jeopardy.

Further the court has also held that the rectification order under section 62 has to be passed within two years time limit. This will affect the dealers badly. Uptill today the position was that dealers can file application for rectification within two years and that the authorities can pass rectification order upon such application even after two years. If this position is not accepted then the remedy of rectification will become redundant. There is nothing in the hands of dealers to get the order passed within stipulated time though they may have filed application within time.

In otherwords, if the rectification order is not so passed within two years, the dealers would be helpless.

In this background we have to request you to please look into the matter. We earnestly believe that, if necessary, it would be appropriate to amend the BST Act,1959 retrospectively to do away with the above mentioned difficulties.

In the mean time, we suggest that suitable instructions be given to appellate authorities to keep appeals against revision orders in abeyance. To avoid effect of above judgment, instructions should also be given to pass rectification orders immediately so as to avoid them becoming invalid.

Secondly, we may also point out that the present MVAT Act,2002 contain provisions for appeal and rectification pari materia with the BST Act. Therefore, the corrective amendments, if any, may also be carried out in the present Act as well.

We are sure that your goodself will look into this matter at the earliest and take suitable action.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
For Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association

C. B. Thakar
(President)

Date : 15-1-2007

To,

The Commissioner of Sales Tax
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.

Dear Sir,

Sir, We are in receipt of Notification No. No. VAT-1506/CR-135-B/
Taxation-1 dated 30-11-2006 issued u/s.41(4) which specifies Motor Spirits and Petroleum Products. The said Notification copy is attached here for ready reference. It can be seen that there is no specification of ‘motor spirit’ and ‘petroleum products’ and hence all above items can be considered as motor spirits also.

We also draw kind attraction of your goodself to Rule 54(b) of MVAT Rules. The said Rule reads as under.

"Non Admissibility of Set off – Negative List (Rule 54)

Following purchases of goods are not eligible for set off:

As per above Rule the motor spirits notified under section 41(4) are not eligible for set off. Impliedly from 1.12.2006 the set off will get disallowed on all items mentioned in the notification dated 30.11.2006. Previously set off was not allowable only on first items. From 1.12.2006, set off will not be eligible on following further items.

"Sr. No. Name of the product Central Excise Tariff Code number.

“Sr. No.	Name of the product	Central Excise Tariff Code number.
7	Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO)	2710
8	Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)	2711
9	Furnace Oil (FO)	2710
10	Light Diesel Oil (LDO)	2710
11	Raw Naphtha or Naphtha	2710
12	Low Sulpher Heavy Stock (LSHS)	2713

The above items are used by every industry in Maharashtra. Non allow ability of set off on above items will increase their cost of production. The production in Maharashtra will be costlier as compared to other States, where set off is allowed on above items. We also feel that this will be against the agreed principle of VAT implementation.

Considering above we request to have a relook at the above notification. If set off is not to be affected on the items now added in above notification then suitable amendment be made in above notification or a suitable clarification be issued.

The list is of importance to all major industries and hence early clarification is very well appreciable. The return for Dec.,2006 is due by 21.1.2007. Therefore the issue be clarified on priority basis so that dealers can file their returns correctly vis-à-vis rule 54(b).

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,