2003 (3) TMI 685 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on various grounds including omission of registration date in form, inclusion of levelling charges, difference in form amount and statement amount, and discrepancy in invoice dates.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner challenged an assessment order where the Commercial Tax Officer refused to give the benefit of the C forms to the assessee citing multiple grounds. The petitioner argued that except for one objection, all other objections raised by the Tax Officer were illegal.

2. Regarding the omission of the registration date in the C form, the petitioner relied on a division bench judgment of the Court in a similar case. The Court held that the omission of the registration date did not make the purchasing dealer unidentifiable and thus should not result in the rejection of the declaration form.

3. The objection related to levelling charges included in the form was also contested by the petitioner. The Court observed that the declaration form was for a higher amount than the bill due to the inclusion of levelling charges. It was deemed unjust for the Tax Officer to refuse credit for the entire form based on this ground.

4. Another objection raised was the difference between the form amount and the statement amount. The Court found the Tax Officer's refusal to give the benefit of the form amount unjust, emphasizing that the relief should have been granted based on the form amount provided.

5. The last objection concerned the discrepancy in the dates of the purchase order and the invoices. The petitioner acknowledged this objection for four bills but argued that for other bills, the invoice dates were subsequent to the purchase order dates, which was not disputed by the department.

6. The Court rejected the department's argument that wrong entries in the form cannot be corrected and must be returned for rectification. It was clarified that the petitioner was entitled to relief for the amount supported by the forms produced, and previous judgments cited by the department were deemed inapplicable.

7. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and ordering relief as per the prayers made. It was specified that the forms would be accepted to the extent indicated, and no costs were awarded.