2014 (8) TMI 1060 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Prima facie error in the order - Admissibility of C forms - non-mentioning of date of issue - Held that - the finding of the Board that the two C forms are inadmissible because they did not mention any date of issue, is not correct. Another finding of the Board that it did not find in those provisions that the forms had to be accompanied by consignment notes is also erroneous. However, the petitioner has to satisfy the Board with regard to some discrepancies appearing at internal page 3 of its order. Therefore, the impugned order of the Board is set aside and remanded back to the Board for consideration and passing of a fresh order within three months from the date of communication of this order by a reasoned decision taking into account the above observations. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues: Setting aside the order of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate & Revisional Board; Admissibility of 'C' forms without mention of date; Requirement of consignment notes; Discrepancies in the order; Remand for fresh decision by the Board.

The judgment delivered by I. P. Mukerji J. pertains to setting aside the order of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate & Revisional Board dated 10th February, 2014. The judge noted that the error in the order was apparent without the need for affidavits, and further affidavits would only cause delays. Referring to a previous case, it was highlighted that the omission to date the form was not a significant issue when the transactions were dated, as they indicated the approximate time of form issuance. Thus, the finding of the Board that 'C' forms were inadmissible due to lack of date of issue was deemed incorrect. Additionally, the judge examined Sections 8(1) and 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and found no requirement for forms to be accompanied by consignment notes, thereby refuting the Board's erroneous conclusion on this matter.

Moreover, the judge pointed out that while the Board's order was set aside, the petitioner needed to address certain discrepancies within their order. Consequently, the impugned order was remanded back to the Board for reconsideration and the issuance of a fresh order within three months from the communication of the judgment. The Board was instructed to provide a reasoned decision, considering the observations made by the judge. The writ application was disposed of with these directions, and it was mentioned that a certified copy of the order would be provided to the parties upon compliance with necessary formalities.