2005 (1) TMI 633 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
2. Whether the dealers are entitled to file certificates/forms "C", "F", and "H" after the completion of the assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:

The petitioners, registered dealers under the APGST Act and CST Act, filed writ petitions challenging the first appellate authority's refusal to entertain appeals on the ground of limitation. The appeals were dismissed as they were filed beyond the permissible thirty-day extension period, which the appellate authority could not condone due to the amendment by Act 8 of 1997.

The petitioners argued that the amendment, which restricted the appellate authority's discretion to condone delays, was unjust. They contended that the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply by virtue of section 29(2) of the said Act, allowing the appellate authority to condone delays without restriction. They cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their argument that the Limitation Act should apply unless explicitly excluded.

The Government Pleader opposed this, stating that the amendment aimed to streamline and simplify the appeal process and reduce discretionary powers to prevent prolonged litigation and revenue delays. The constitutionality of the amendment had already been upheld, and applying the Limitation Act would nullify the legislative intent.

The court examined section 19 of the APGST Act, both before and after the amendment, noting that the amendment intentionally restricted the appellate authority's power to condone delays. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including those in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, and Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, among others. These cases emphasized that even if a special law does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, the scheme and intent of the special law could imply such exclusion.

The court concluded that applying the Limitation Act would undermine the legislative intent of the amendment, which aimed to curtail discretionary powers and ensure timely revenue collection. Hence, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to the proceedings under the APGST Act.

2. Filing of Certificates/Forms "C", "F", and "H" Post-Assessment:

The petitioners alternatively sought a direction to allow the filing of certificates/forms "C", "F", and "H" after the completion of the assessment. They relied on a Madras High Court decision in Vispro Foundry Engineers Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, where the court allowed reopening of assessments to accept such forms.

The court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company, which held that appellate authorities could accept "C" forms during appeals as they are a continuation of the original assessment proceedings. However, the court noted that this decision did not address whether assessing authorities could reopen assessments at the dealers' request.

The court observed that even if such power exists, it is for the dealers to approach the assessing authority directly, not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the court found no merit in granting the alternative relief sought by the petitioners.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions were dismissed, with the court holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to the APGST Act proceedings and that the dealers must approach the assessing authority directly for filing certificates/forms post-assessment.

← Previous Next →