1.

Date : 20-5-2006

To,

The Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai

Sub: Request for clarification regarding VAT Audit u/s. 61 of the MVAT Act, 2002

Dear Sir,

With reference to the above, we request you to kindly clarify the following matter:

    Our client is doing a Proprietory Hotel business in Mumbai. He is also registered under VAT in Mumbai and holding a TIN number under VAT. His turnover of sales/purchases is below Rs. 40 lacs per annum in Mumbai.

    He is also having a Proprietary Hotel business at Shirdi in a different trade name. He is registered under VAT for his Hotel business at Shirdi and holding a TIN number separately at Shirdi. His turnover of sales/purchases at Shirdi is also below Rs. 40 lakhs per annum.

    But, his turnover of sales/purchases at Mumbai and Shirdi taken together exceeds Rs. 40 lakhs per annum. The trade names of the hotel business at Mumbai and Shirdi are different. He is also holding different TIN numbers under VAT for Mumbai and Shirdi. He is filing VAT returns separately at Mumbai and Shirdi. Under the above circumstances, please let us know whether VAT Audit u/s. 61 is necessary.

Request for clarification regarding set off on closing stock:

    In the case of liquor dealers, in view of judgment in the case of M/s. Vijay Wine Mart (S. A. No. 1817 of 204 dated 29-11-2005)., please clarify as to whether set off of tax paid on goods of closing stock lying as on 31-3-2006 is available in the financial year 2005-06 if the said goods are sold in the subsequent financial year 2006-07.

    Please clarify the above matters at your earliest and oblige.

    Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
For Yardi Prabhu & Associates
Chartered Accountants
Partner
________________________________________________________________

2.

Office of the
Commissioner of Sales Tax,
8th Floor, Vikrikar Bhavan,
Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.

To,

Yardi Prabhu & Associates
Chartered Accountants
2, Samadhan, Agarkar Chowk,
Opp. Railway Station,
Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069

Sub: Clarification regarding VAT Audit u/s. 61 of the MVAT Act, 2002.

Ref.: Your letter No. YPA/87/2006-07 dated 20-5-2006

    With reference to above mentioned subject, I am directed to convey you the following:

1. You are requested to get cancelled one of your TIN (of your choice).

2. For Audit purpose, the cumulative turnover of both the places needs to be considered for the purpose of Audit.

3. The Tribunal Judgment should be followed regarding set off.

(S. D. Bhandare)
Sr. Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (A&R)
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
_________________________________________________________________

3.

Date:- 15-8-2006

To

Hon. Finance Minister
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 020

Dear Sir,

Sub:- Need to provide for administrative relief for late application for registration under MVAT Act

    There are various cases, where the dealers have started their business for the first time, and they could not apply for the new registration under MVAT Act in time. They are liable to pay the Sales Tax (Vat) when crossing the prescribed limit for MVAT Registration, however they do not get the set off purchases covered by URD period.

    Many times their gross profit margins are also not enough to cover up the losses due to non-availability a set off of unregistered period.

    It is the need of the hour that, administrative relief is provided with immediate effect under MVAT ACT.

    Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
(Hasmukh D. Savla)
_________________________________________________________________

4.

To

The Talati & Co.
4th Flr., Victoria Building,
27, S.A. Brelvi Road, Fort
Mumbai – 400 001

Sub : Application for administrative relief

Ref : Your letter dated 23rd June 2006

    With reference to the queries raised by you the reply is as follows:   

(Dilip Dixit)
Jt. Commissioner of Sales Tax (HQ)1
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
_________________________________________________________________

5.

Date :- 16-9-2006

To

Hon'ble Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

Ref : Trade Circular No. 22T dated 7-9-2006

Sub : Inclusion of more categories for assessment under section 33(2) of the B.S.T. Act

Respected Sir,

    We thank you very much for granting relief to the dealers by issuing instructions for assessments up to ‘P’ year 2004-05. In this respect we would like to request you as follows –

1. Last assessment of dealers having RC cancelled w.e.f. 1-7-2004 and 31-3-2005

    The above referred circular does not make reference to the dealers whose registration certificates were cancelled due to increase in threshold limit of turnover w.e.f. 1-7-2004 and from 1-4-2005.

    The Government had made amendments to the BST Act to increase the threshold limit of turnover and RCs of dealers having lesser turnover were automatically cancelled by the department w.e.f. 1-7-2004 for which procedure of defacement was prescribed.

    Similarly with implementation of VAT wef from 1-4-2005, again RCs of dealers having lower turnover were cancelled w.e.f. from 1-4-2005.

    Sir, number of such dealers is quite large and amount of taxation involved would be comparatively lower. As per the present instructions contained in the circular last assessment periods for dealers whose RC is cancelled is required to be regularly assessed and not under section 33(2).

    We would like to request your honour to include the dealers whose RC is cancelled due to increase in threshold limit of turnover w.e.f. 1-7-2004 and from 1-4-2005 as eligible for summary assessment under section 33(2) of the B.S.T Act .

2. Cases of refund where amount of Refund is up to 20,000/-

    Present instructions as per Circular 22T require for regular assessment of dealers who have claimed refund exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. We would like to request you that this limit may please be restored to Rs. 20,000/- (Excluding Interest under section 43A) as has been there in many previous circulars.

    We hope that if above two categories are covered for summary assessment
u/s 33(2), work load on the department for completion of assessments as well as hardship to the dealers would reduce to a large extent. We also feel that no substantial question of revenue loss would be involved in those small cases.

    Thanking you,