2011 (10) TMI 557 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of order passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 under U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Acceptance of forms C and F beyond the stipulated time under rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.
3. Imposition of tax liability due to non-acceptance of forms C and F and proof of export.
4. Grant of stay on the disputed tax amount by Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The revisionist challenged the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order dated October 12, 2011. The revisionist is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing motor vehicles. During the assessment year 2008-09, certain stock transfers were made to branch offices and consignment agents outside U.P., requiring forms F under the Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist faced difficulties obtaining forms C and F within the stipulated time. The Commissioner of Trade Tax had issued circulars allowing time extensions for filing forms with reasonable grounds. The assessing authority treated the stock transfer as Central sales and imposed a substantial tax liability due to non-filing of forms within time.

2. The revisionist contended that the forms were not filed within time, but an application for extension was submitted. The assessing authority did not consider this application and imposed a significant tax demand. The revisionist emphasized that the Act and Rules allow for filing forms beyond the prescribed time with valid reasons. Citing precedents, the revisionist argued for acceptance of forms beyond the deadline. The standing counsel defended the order, stating the revisionist failed to submit the required forms within the specified period.

3. The Tribunal partially allowed the revisionist's appeal by granting further stay on the disputed tax amount. The revisionist sought more relief, citing provisions allowing for filing forms beyond the deadline with sufficient cause. The Tribunal modified its order, directing the revisionist to deposit a portion of the demanded tax by a specified date to keep the majority of the tax demand in abeyance pending appeal. The revisionist was also required to provide security for the stayed amount within a set timeframe.

4. Ultimately, the trade tax revision was partly allowed, instructing the first appellate authority to decide on the appeal by a specified date. The judgment balanced the interests of the revisionist and the tax authorities, providing a framework for addressing the tax liability issue while ensuring due process and compliance with legal provisions.