1996 (10) TMI 441 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of revision applications.
2. Requirement of furnishing "C" forms for availing concessional tax rates under the CST Act.
3. Validity of the orders by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal.
4. Acceptance of "C" forms covering multiple transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Revision Applications:

The respondent-dealer raised two preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the revision applications. The first objection was that only the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (CCT), could file the applications for revision, not the present petitioner. This objection was overruled as Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (RST Act) allows the CCT to direct any Commercial Taxes Officer (CTO) or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply for revision. There is no requirement that the CCT himself must apply.

The second objection was that revision No. 1468 of 1995 was barred by time. The delay was only 24 days, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved along with the revision application. The Tribunal had admitted the application for hearing, effectively condoning the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial questions of law should be adjudicated on merits rather than dismissed on technical procedural grounds. Thus, the applications were deemed maintainable and were to be disposed of on merits.

2. Requirement of Furnishing "C" Forms for Availing Concessional Tax Rates:

The core controversy revolved around Notification No. F. 5(25)FD/CT/72-15 dated May 20, 1976, which stipulated a reduced tax rate of 1% for inter-State sales of 'non-ferrous wires' on furnishing "C" forms. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal had held that the notification did not require the furnishing of "C" forms at the relevant time. However, the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547 clarified that the furnishing of "C" forms was necessary to avail concessional rates of tax under sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 8 of the CST Act. The Supreme Court ruled that these provisions are integral and must be complied with to benefit from the reduced tax rates. Therefore, the insertion made on March 7, 1994, in the notification was merely clarificatory and did not imply that there was no such requirement before that date.

3. Validity of Orders by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal:

Given the Supreme Court's ruling, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated January 16, 1991, and December 12, 1990, and the orders of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated August 19, 1994, and September 1, 1994, which had set aside the assessing authority's orders, were found unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside these impugned orders as they were inconsistent with the legal requirement of furnishing "C" forms for availing the concessional tax rates.

4. Acceptance of "C" Forms Covering Multiple Transactions:

During the arguments, the respondent-dealer's counsel made an oral plea that in one of the cases, the "C" forms submitted by the dealer were not accepted by the assessing authority because they covered more than one transaction. The counsel cited Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali v. Kanhayalal Mohanlal [1987] 64 STC 449 (Raj), which held that furnishing a single declaration form for multiple transactions was a technical default and could be overlooked. However, the Tribunal noted that the forms in question were not before them, and adequate details were not discernible from the lower authorities' orders. Therefore, the assessing authority was directed to examine this aspect and determine it according to the law.

Conclusion:

The applications for revision were accepted, setting aside the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the assessing authority to look into the issue of "C" forms covering multiple transactions and determine it in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made. Petitions allowed.

← Previous Next →