2012 (3) TMI 390 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

C form declined - whether the petitioner s purchase of the earth moving equipments falls in entry No. 25 of Schedule II of the Jharkhand Valued Added Tax Act, 2005? - Held that - The petitioner is engaged in a mining operation and got the machineries included in his registration certificate which was issued by the respondent themselves and in application he has disclosed that he is engaged in the mining business and particularly in the business of removing overburden obviously of the mine and specifically uranium mine. Therefore, the petitioner s machineries/equipments purchased for the purpose of earth moving, certainly fall in entry No. 25, Schedule II of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue C form to the petitioner immediately. In consequence thereof the notice of initiation of penalty proceedings is also quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of entry No. 25 of Schedule II of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Eligibility of the petitioner for C form for the purchase of earth moving equipments.
3. Dispute regarding the nature of machineries purchased by the petitioner.
4. Validity of the orders declining C form and penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the interpretation of entry No. 25 of Schedule II of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court examined whether the petitioner's purchase of earth moving equipments falls within the scope of this entry. The entry includes various types of machineries and equipment, specifically mentioning earth moving machineries along with examples and a broad category of similar implements. The court emphasized that the nature of the machinery is crucial in determining its classification under this entry.

2. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, sought C form for the purchase of earth moving machineries. The contention arose when the authorities declined the C form for the year 2009, despite providing it in previous years. The assessing officer noted discrepancies in the petitioner's registration certificate and opined that earth moving equipments were not explicitly mentioned, leading to the denial of the C form. The petitioner challenged this decision through revision petitions.

3. The court analyzed the petitioner's registration details and business activities, highlighting that the petitioner disclosed engagement in mining operations involving the removal of overburden, particularly in uranium mines. The court concluded that the machineries purchased for earth moving purposes by the petitioner indeed fell under the category of earth moving machineries as per entry No. 25 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of the nature of the machinery in determining its classification.

4. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the authorities to issue the C form to the petitioner promptly. Additionally, the court quashed the penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the relevant entry and upheld the petitioner's eligibility for the C form based on the nature of the machineries purchased for earth moving activities.