2014 (6) TMI 952 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Genuine reasons for delay - Petitioner produced C form belatedly for which sufficient reason has been given but not accepted by revenue - Held that - the section clearly says that it is for the petitioner to give reasonable cause for the delay. In this case, due to personal inconvenience, the petitioner has produced the C form belatedly. Normally, illness of the family members should have been taken into consideration. Taking into consideration the personal inconvenience, which has been brought to the notice of the respondent by relevant documents, the respondent could have shown some leniency considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. But, the respondent has not done so. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order of respondent in CST regarding higher rate of tax on inter-State sale covered by C forms due to belated submission of forms.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the respondent's order proposing a higher tax rate on inter-State sales not covered by C forms. The petitioner contended that despite filing C forms belatedly due to the serious illness of the proprietor and his wife, the reasons provided were not accepted by the respondent. The main issue revolved around the reason for the delay in submitting the C forms, as per rule 12(7) of the CST (R & T) Rules, 1957.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was due to the ill health of the proprietor and his wife, which was a valid reason for the delayed submission of the C forms. However, the respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, claimed that the reason given by the petitioner was not genuine or proper, leading to the authority's decision not to consider it.

The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had provided valid reasons for the delay in filing the C forms, citing personal inconveniences like illness in the family. The court noted that such personal circumstances should have been taken into account by the respondent while considering the delay. The court opined that leniency should have been shown by the respondent, given the genuine reasons provided by the petitioner.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order of the respondent dated April 15, 2014, and allowed the writ petition. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the petitioner permitted to submit further documents if necessary. The respondent was directed to reevaluate the case, considering all documents and circumstances, and pass appropriate orders promptly. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.