2014 (4) TMI 364 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Limitation period Prescription period for submission of Form-E - Rule 5 of U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Rules Held that - A perusal of the rule only shows that it talks of transactions of purchase and sale to be entered into in the form concerned, which must be of same financial year or such as made during two financial year immediately preceding and succeeding that financial year Here, for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 transactions of purchase and sale made during the same financial year were mentioned in Form-E, and to that extent there was no flaw but the only dispute is that he submitted those forms after more than two years of the relevant assessment year - For that purpose, no period of limitation could be shown within which these forms must have been submitted otherwise would be barred by limitation Accordingly, Tribunal has not erred in law in admitting Form-E so as to confer benefit thereunder upon dealer - No question of law is involved in this matter Revision is dismissed Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of time period for submission of Form-E under U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Rules and U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the time period for the submission of Form-E under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Rules and U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. The Learned Standing Counsel failed to show any provision prescribing a specific time frame for submitting Form-E. Rule 5 of U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Rules was presented, which did not specify any deadline for depositing Form-E. However, Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 applies Rule 12-A (3 to 22) of U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, mutatis mutandis to Rule 5. Reference was made to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 12-A of U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, which discusses the validity of blank forms issued by the Trade Tax Officer for transactions of purchase or sale within a financial year and two financial years preceding and succeeding that year.

2. The judgment highlights that the rule in question pertains to transactions of purchase and sale to be recorded in the relevant form within the same financial year or two financial years immediately preceding and succeeding that year. It is acknowledged that the respondent-dealer mentioned transactions of purchase and sale for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the Form-E submitted. The dispute arose because the forms were submitted after more than two years from the relevant assessment year. However, the judgment notes the absence of any specified limitation period within which the forms must be submitted to avoid being time-barred.

3. The judgment concludes that the Tribunal did not err in law by admitting the Form-E to grant benefits to the dealer. It states that there is no legal question involved in the matter, indicating that the Tribunal's decision was appropriate in the given circumstances. Consequently, the revision is dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the submission of Form-E without a prescribed time limitation.

This analysis provides a detailed understanding of the judgment's interpretation of the time period for submitting Form-E under the relevant tax rules, emphasizing the absence of a specific limitation period and the Tribunal's decision in admitting the form despite the delay in submission.