2002 (11) TMI 762 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the rejection of form D declarations by sales tax authorities in Tamil Nadu.
2. Interpretation of the legality of the respondent's entitlement to issue form D for concessional rate under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Dispute regarding the petitioner's failure to return rejected form D declarations to the respondent for issuance of form C.
4. Examination of whether the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court for breach of contract.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a public limited company, supplied cement to the respondent-Board, an agency of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner's contention is that sales tax authorities in Tamil Nadu rejected the form D declarations issued by the buyers, leading to a demand for tax at the full rate on the inter-State sales made by the petitioner. The respondent rejected the petitioner's representation challenging this decision through exhibit P.10 order.

2. The petitioner challenged the respondent's view that they were entitled to issue form D for concessional rates under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that a corporate body or organization with a separate legal entity cannot be considered a Government Department. Therefore, the petitioner argued that the respondent, being only a Government agency and not a Government Department, wrongly issued form D. The petitioner sought a declaration that the respondent's view expressed in exhibit P.10 was illegal and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court.

3. The respondent contended that they had complied with the contract terms by making payments and furnishing form D declarations. They argued that if the form D declarations were not acceptable, the petitioner should have returned them to allow the respondent to obtain form C in their place. The respondent claimed that the petitioner did not properly pursue the matter with the sales tax authorities beyond the Commercial Tax Officer, and without a decision from the Tribunal or High Court, the petitioner could not assert that the D forms issued were misdeclarations. The respondent also raised the issue of breach of contract, suggesting that any dispute should be addressed in the civil court.

4. The Court declined to determine whether the respondent was entitled to issue form D as a Government Department or eligible to issue form C for goods resold during construction work. The Court emphasized that tax liability is a component of the contract price, and any breach of contract should be addressed through civil court proceedings. The absence of statutory provisions entitling the supplier to collect differential tax in case of short-collection under the contract led the Court to conclude that the matter should be governed by the contract terms. Since the petitioner did not pursue assessment to obtain an authoritative order and did not return form D or give the respondent an opportunity to obtain form C, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that a writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable in this case.