2010 (9) TMI 988 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Concessional rate of tax - inter-State sale - C forms and F forms - Held that - during the hearing, the forms were sought to be produced, which was not allowed. In view of explanation given by the petitioner that the forms were received late, it could be held that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner for not producing the said forms before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority which was no bar to the same being produced before the Tribunal - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking direction for acceptance of C forms for claiming concessional tax rate, rejection of claim for concessional tax during sales tax assessment, refusal to entertain certain declarations in forms C and F, justification of impugned order based on belated production of forms, interpretation of relevant legal precedents.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought direction for acceptance of C forms to claim concessional tax rate for sales to registered dealers in inter-State sales under rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. An additional demand was raised during the assessment for the year 2004-05, rejecting the claim for concessional tax. The Tribunal allowed the production of C forms and F forms, remanding the matter for verification. The petitioner obtained more forms and requested their inclusion, which was denied due to lack of evidence of their production during the appeal.

The petitioner contended that, if genuine, they could produce the forms at any stage based on legal precedents like the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410 (SC) and Varsha Spinning Mills Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 P&H 195. The State justified the order, citing the petitioner's delay in production without justification.

The court upheld the petitioner's claim, citing the Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. case, emphasizing that appellate authorities could receive form C in appeal upon showing sufficient cause for not filing them earlier. The explanation provided by the petitioner, stating that the forms were issued after the appellate authority's decision, was deemed sufficient cause for the delayed production. The court concluded that the petitioner had valid reasons for not producing the forms earlier before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority, allowing the production before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition, directing respondent No. 4 to permit the petitioner to produce the forms as per the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, including the interpretation of legal provisions, the application of precedents, and the justification for allowing the belated production of forms.