2011 (12) TMI 469 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Input-tax credit denied - rejection of declaration forms in VAT 07, 08 and 09 - Held that - The assessee-dealer may fall in the class of dealers covered under the notification dated February 27, 2009 but the said notification ex facie does not make it retrospective. It stipulates that same was having immediate effect, i.e., with effect from February 27, 2009, a date after the relevant dates on which soft copies were filed by the assessee-company in the present case. Therefore, per se on the interpretation of these Rules, it cannot be applied retrospectively. The ground taken by the assessing authority in the impugned assessment order does not seem to be mere technical or a sham ground. It is not for this court to apply the said rule or notification retrospectively, merely because the e-filing of returns deserves to be encouraged. The grievance of the assessee in the present case, cannot be redressed by issuing mandamus to the respondent-Department to accept such soft copies on the relevant dates when they were filed, even in absence of specific statutory rules or notification. Moreover, since the assessee has effective alternative remedy by way of filing appeal available to it under section 82 of the Act and no exceptional grounds are made out in the present case, the present writ petition cannot be maintained.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the assessment order dated September 22, 2009.
2. Rejection of the statement of purchases (VAT-07 and 8) filed in soft copy.
3. Availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order Dated September 22, 2009:

The petitioner, Hindustan Zinc Limited, challenged the assessment order dated September 22, 2009, for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessment was conducted under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with sections 24, 55, 58, 61, and 73 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and rule 19 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006. The petitioner sought the quashing of this assessment order.

2. Rejection of the Statement of Purchases (VAT-07 and 8) Filed in Soft Copy:

The petitioner argued that rule 19 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006, during the relevant period, did not prohibit the filing of soft copies in electronic mode of forms VAT-07, 08, and 09. These forms were filed by the assessee-company on various dates for different quarters of the assessment year. Despite submitting hard copies in response to a notice, the assessing authority rejected the soft copies, ignoring the details of purchases and sales provided therein. The court examined the provisions of rule 19 and rule 19A as they existed at the relevant time and noted that the amendments allowing electronic filing were brought into effect after the relevant dates of filing by the assessee. Consequently, the court concluded that the assessing authority's rejection of the soft copies was not merely technical but based on the absence of statutory rules permitting such filings at the relevant time.

3. Availability of Alternative Remedy by Way of Appeal:

The court highlighted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under section 82 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act. The court emphasized that no exceptional grounds were presented to bypass this alternative remedy. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should pursue the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. The court also noted that the petitioner could raise the issue of defect removal in filing returns under rule 19(6) before the appellate forums. No costs were awarded.