2005 (9) TMI 612 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing officer to reopen assessments.
2. Validity and conclusiveness of Form "F" declarations.
3. Nature of inquiry by the assessing authority under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. Reassessment based on new evidence and alleged fraud or misrepresentation.
5. Appropriate reliefs and directions for reassessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to Reopen Assessments:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu assessing authorities to reopen assessments that were originally concluded under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) after accepting Form "F". The Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India [1997] 105 STC 152 held that Section 6-A did not create a conclusive presumption and that the order accepting Form "F" could be reopened depending on the provisions of the concerned State sales tax enactment. The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu authorities to decide the matter first, allowing appeals directly to the Tribunal if necessary.

2. Validity and Conclusiveness of Form "F" Declarations:
The Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473 reversed its earlier decision, holding that the order of the assessing authority under Section 6-A of the CST Act is conclusive for all practical purposes. It can only be reopened on grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion. The proof required in Form "F" is whether the goods were transferred to the assessee himself or his branch office or agent, not to any third party. Any other inquiry is beyond the realm of the assessing officer.

3. Nature of Inquiry by the Assessing Authority Under Section 6-A of the CST Act:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the inquiry under Section 6-A is limited to verifying whether the goods were factually transferred to the assessee or his branch/agent. The assessing authority must ensure the validity and truthfulness of the Form "F" declaration. Once an order is passed accepting Form "F", it creates a conclusive presumption that cannot be reopened except on limited grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation.

4. Reassessment Based on New Evidence and Alleged Fraud or Misrepresentation:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment orders were illegal as they had already paid local sales tax in other States for the same transactions. The Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473 held that reassessment can only be directed in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion. Discovery of new material alone is not sufficient unless it shows a jurisdictional error. The reassessment conducted by the Tamil Nadu authorities did not adhere to these principles, and the Tribunal's confirmation of these reassessments was flawed.

5. Appropriate Reliefs and Directions for Reassessment:
Given the deviations from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the assessing authorities for reconsideration in light of the law declared in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473. The High Court directed the assessing officer to re-do the assessment expeditiously, giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the alternative relief sought for by way of mandamus was dismissed as not arising for consideration.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for reassessment in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. The impugned orders were set aside, and the assessing authorities were instructed to re-evaluate the assessments, ensuring compliance with the principles established in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473. The connected petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →