2016 (1) TMI 1354 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of order - it is the grievance of the petitioner that since they could not obtain form C and form I inspite of several reminders, they were unable to file it before the respondent. Thereafter, on getting the form C and form I, the petitioner, by invoking section 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, filed the same - Held that - The facts which are not disputed in the cases on hand show that the petitioner is regularly filing their monthly returns and complying with the statutory requirements. The respondent has also accepted the turnover reported by the petitioner as correct and determined the same. However, for want of form C and form I, the respondent adopted higher rate of tax at 14.5 per cent, which in my view, cannot be sustained in view of a circular dated February 1, 2000 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai. The writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated December 16, 2015 and January 21, 2016 and directing the respondent to accept form I filed by the petitioner on January 19, 2016 for the sales made to SEZ for the assessment year 2011-2012 and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for assessment year 2011-12 due to higher tax rate without Form C and Form I. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petition despite alternative remedy of appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged orders passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2011-12, imposing a higher tax rate without Form C and Form I. The petitioner reported a turnover of Rs. 33,50,153, including sales to "SEZ." Despite accepting the reported turnover, the respondent applied a higher tax rate due to the absence of Form C and Form I. The petitioner later submitted Form C and Form I under section 12(7) of the CST Rules, requesting a revision, which the respondent refused. The petitioner argued that the respondent's refusal contravened a circular allowing reopening for new C forms, citing State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad) [FB]. The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an appeal.

The High Court noted the provision under Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules, allowing the authority to extend the time for submitting declaration forms/certificates upon satisfaction of sufficient cause. The court observed the petitioner's regular compliance with statutory requirements and the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, emphasizing the acceptance of new C forms without onus on the assessee. Referring to the Full Bench judgment in Arulmurugan's case, the court highlighted the authority's power to allow further time for C forms, even without specific statutory provisions for reopening assessments. The court held that the respondent's refusal to revise the order was untenable, directing acceptance of Form I and fresh orders in compliance with the law.

In light of the Full Bench judgment and the circular, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and instructing the respondent to accept Form I for sales to "SEZ" for the assessment year 2011-2012 and pass fresh orders. The court concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.