2014 (4) TMI 1033 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Bar of Limitation Claim for Deduction - Requirement to abide by time limit u/s 4-D- Turnover as per Section 2(r) present or not Held That - Assessee does not dispute the fact that at least in certain cases it had failed to file the Form within 30 days of the receipt of the goods returned, and even in cases where the same had been filed within 30 days, it failed to give such details, which are required under law to be given - Assessee does not make a dispute on this aspect that the claim for unfructified sale could be entertained only subject to the assessee satisfying those conditions and the question of refund arises only when the assessee satisfies the assessing authority that in fact, there had been an unfructified sale - Assessee had not shown any reasons for the belated filing Assessee had not filed Form A-4 within 30 days time limit prescribed and even thereafter, before the Appellate Authority without prescribed particulars on the belated filing, there is no justification to grant the relief - Thus, in the absence of any material to show that the assessee had given sufficient cause for not making a claim before the Assessing Authority in the manner prescribed under the law. Relyin upon State of Andhra Pradesh Versus Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. 1994 (4) TMI 302 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA an appeal being a continuation of the assessment, the assessee may file Form A-4 before the Appellate Authority and the same would be subject to the assessee showing and satisfying sufficient cause and not otherwise - However, where there lies no dispute on the claim of unfructified sale, the claim must necessarily go by the provision of the Act and the Rules. As for the Forms filed beyond 30 days, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, case of assessee is not acceptable - Thus, we accept the plea of the assessee for a remand only in respect of cases where the claim was made within 30 days of the receipt of the goods on unfructified sale with the complete details - Revision filed by the assessee stands dismissed in respect of the turnover for which the Forms were filed beyond 30 days time frame and without assigning any reason before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - However, in respect of forms filed within time, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the claim Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the time limit provided by Section 4-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is directory or mandatory.
2. Whether unfructified sales result in no turnover within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Whether the time limit prescribed under Section 4-D can bar a claim for deduction from turnover at the time of final assessment in the case of unfructified sales.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time Limit under Section 4-D: Directory or Mandatory?
The court examined whether the 30-day time limit for filing a refund claim under Section 4-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is mandatory or directory. The court concluded that the time limit is mandatory. The provision requires that claims be filed within 30 days of receipt of the returned goods, and failure to comply results in the rejection of the claim. The court emphasized that both the time limit and the manner of filing are crucial for the claim to be entertained.

2. Unfructified Sales and Turnover:
The court addressed whether unfructified sales result in no turnover as per Section 2(r) of the Act. It was acknowledged that unfructified sales are not considered sales and thus should not be included in the turnover. However, the court stressed that the statutory procedure for claiming a refund, including adherence to the time limit and providing necessary details, must be followed.

3. Time Limit as a Bar for Deduction Claims:
The court analyzed whether the time limit under Section 4-D could bar a deduction claim from turnover at the final assessment stage. The court held that the statutory time limit is a bar to such claims. It was noted that the assessee failed to comply with the 30-day requirement and did not provide essential details in Form A-4, leading to the rejection of the claim. The court rejected the argument that the time limit should be considered directory, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions.

Additional Observations:
- The court referenced Rule 23(2-B) and Form A-4, highlighting the necessity of submitting a complete claim within the prescribed time.
- The court noted that the assessee had filed incomplete forms and failed to provide essential details for verifying the refund claim.
- The court distinguished between the provisions for sales returns under Section 4-C and unfructified sales under Section 4-D, noting that while Section 4-C allows claims until the final assessment, Section 4-D strictly requires filing within 30 days.
- The court dismissed the assessee's reliance on the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd., stating that the primary obligation is to file statutory forms within the prescribed time unless sufficient cause for delay is shown.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the tax case revision filed by the assessee for claims filed beyond the 30-day limit and without satisfactory explanation. However, it remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to verify and consider claims filed within the 30-day limit, provided they include complete details as required by the Act. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limit and the necessity of following statutory procedures for refund claims.