Slide 1

PG FOILS LTD. , PIPLIAN , PALI.PETITIONERV/SCOMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, PALI .RESPONDENTS

REVISION PETITION U/S 84 RAJASTHAN VAT ACT 2003

ON 31.12/2009 COMMON JUDGEMENT (SERVED ON 14/1/2010) BY TAX BOARD , AJMER IN APPEAL NO.________/2007 (CTO V/S PG FOILS)ON 16/3/1999 SETTING ASIDE ORDER BY DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)

STATEMENTS OF CASE

1. MAIN QUESTION Whether Aluminium Foil fall under the ambit of word Sheet which is notified on dated 31/12/1975 and petitioner is liable to the concessional rate tax at 1 % or not ?

2. Ld. Tax board passed Impugned order 31/12/2009 , so, revision petition file before RAJ. H.C. for adjudication on same core question.

3. Notification which are in dispute are as follows :-

4. PETITIONER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION BEFORE ADD. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES RAJ JAIPUR U/S 12 A OF RST ACT, 1954 FOR DISPUTED QUESTION & ON 18/7/1984 HELD THAT {ALUMINIUM FOILSARE NOT COVERED BY NOTI.DATED 13/12/1975}

SEPRATE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 9 OF RST ACT AGAINST PETITIONERS 1982 1986.

PETITIONERS CHALLENGED ORDERS BEFORE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)

7. ON 26/2/1991 APPEALS WERE PARTLY ALLOWED BY RST TRIBUNAL , AJMER AND MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR DECIDING THE CORE ISSUE , PETITIONER PREFER REVISION PETITION BEFORE RHC.

26/9/1988 (1ST APPEAL) - APPEAL AGAINST APPLICATION U/S 12 A31/12/1988 (2ND APPEAL) - AGAINST UPHELD PROVISIONAL ASSESTMENT ORDERS8. ON 12/3/1994 APPEALS DECIDED BY RHC & UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL

9. AFTER UPHELD BY RHC OF STT , MATTERS AGAIN EXAMINED BY ASSESSING AUTHORITY.

10. ON 2-1-1995 ASSESSING AUTHORITY PASS PROVISIONAL AND FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS & PETITIONER FILED A APPEALS BEFORE DTY. COMMISIIONER (APPEALS).

11. ON 16-1-1999 APPEALS REJECTED BY DTY COMMISSIONER AGAINST ORDER DATED 2-1-1995.

12. ON 8/2/1999 RAJ. TAX BOARD REVERSED FINDINGS AND ALOWED APPEALS.2 OF PG FOILS AND 2 OF INDIA LAMINATED LTD.DEPARTMENT AGGRIEVED FILED 4 REVISIONS.

13. ON 16/3/1999 PETITIONERS APPLICATION OF RECTIFICATION WERE ALLOWED U/S 37 BY DTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS).

14. ON 12/7/2006 REVISIONS WERE DISMISSED BY RHC.

15. ON 27/2/2002 TAX BOARD UPHELD THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (16/3/1999)

16. ON 15/6/2002 APPEALS WERE ALSO DISMISSED WHICH WERE FILED BY REVENUE IN LIGHT OF 8/2/1999.

17. THAT BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST ORDER DATED OF:- TAX BOARD

8/02/1999 27/02/2002 15/06/2002-Department filed a bunch of revisions petition before Raj HC to decideWhether aluminum foil covered under the notification dated 31/12/1975

18. ON 8/1/2007,RHC REVIVED APPEALS DECIDED BY SAID ORDER 8/2/1999 AND DIRECTED TAX BOARD TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY REVENUE.

19. ON 19/1/2007 AND 11/1/2008 SIMILAR REVISION PETITIONS BY REVENUE WERE ALSO DECIDED BY THIS RHC IN LIGHT OF JUDGEMENT DATED 8/1/2007

20. ON 31/12/2009 LD. TAX BOARD HELD ALUMINIUM FOILS NOT COVERED UNDER DATED 31/12/1975 AND MATTER REMANDED BACK TO ASSESSING AUTHORITIES , TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN LIGHT OF ORDER 31/12/2009.

GROUNDS

THAT LD. TAX BOARD COMMITTED SERIOUS ILLIGALITY IN DECIDING THAT ALUMINUM FOIL NOT FALL UNDER NOTIFICATION DATED 31/12/1975.

THAT LD TAX BOARD IGNORE EVIDENCES WHICH PROVES THAT ALUMINUM FOIL IS THINNER FORM OF NON FERROUS SHEET AND COMES UNDER NOTIFICATION DATED 31/12/1975.

THAT LD TAX BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER ITS EARLIER DETAILED ORDER DATED 8/2/1999. HELD THAT ALUMINUM FOIL COMES UNDER THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31/12/1975 AND LD TAX BOARD NOT DECIDED THE MATTER FRESHLY AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY RHC VIDE ORDER DATED 8/1/2007 AND ALSO FAILOED TO GIVE DETAIL REASON AND ANSWER OF QUESTION WHICH WAS FRAMED BY RHC.D. ALUMINUM FOILS ARE NOT DIFFERENT FROM NON FERROUS SHEETS.

E. SCOPE OF NON FERROUS SHEETS IS VERY WIDE

F. ALUMINUM FOIL NOT ONLY USED IN PACKING MATERIAL ONLY.

G. ORDER DATED 31/12/2009 BASED ON USER THEORY AND ON MISAPPROPRIATION OF EVIDENCES

H. ALUMINUM FOILS IS A SPECIE AND SHEETS IS A GENUS

I. MECHANICAL PROCESS MAY CHANGE THE END PRODUCT BUT NATURE AND QUALITY DOESNT CHANGE.

J. IMPUGNED ORDER 31/12/2009 AGAINST RATIO DECIDENDI AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

k. NOTIFICATION DATED 13/6/1985 IS SPECIFIC IN NATURE AND IN ABROGATION OF PREVIOUS NOTIFICATION.

TY

SHEETS (GENUS) (SPECIE) ALU. FOIL

10L. LEGISLATURE INTENTION TO GIVE WIDE EFFECT OF NON FERROUS SHEETS .

M. MECHANICAL PROCESS DOESNT CHANGE COMMODITYDESCRIPTION

N. REVENUE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN IN REBUTTAL

N. WORD (FOIL AND SHEETS) IS NOT DEFINED IN RST,CST AND RULES

O. NOTIFICATION 13/6/1985 WAS NOT ISSUED IN SUPPRESSION OF EARLIER NOTIFICATION 31/12/1975

P. IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/12/2009 PASSED BY LD TAX BOARD SHOULD BE QUASHED NAD SET ASIDE.

PRAYERWHEREFORE in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honourable Court that it may be pleased to declare:1. That impugned order dated 31/12/2009 passed by ld tax board should be quashed and set aside.2. That remanding the matters to the assessing authority kindly be quashed and set aside.3. That the aluminum foil is non ferrous sheets and liable to taxable at rate of 1% as per notification dated 31/12/1975.4. That kindly restore the orders passed by deputy commissioner (appeals) dated 16/3/1999.And pass any other order that it deems fit. All of which is respectfully submitted.

DATED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 8/10/2013 SHUBHAM MODI