2014 (5) TMI 303 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Liability to pay Tax - Inter-state transfer of goods Nature of Assessee Assessee being a service provider of machines and paper Brief Facts - The writ petitions were entertained on the ground that the petitioner was not accepted as dealer in the previous assessment years and as such he was not required to present Form- F of CST Act, for taking out and bringing machines or paper, as the petitioner was only providing services of machines and paper, and does not deal in sale and purchase of drilling machine and paper - Held that - Assessment orders for the subject years, passed by the assessing authority, for almost in the same type of transactions could not have been passed only on the ground of judgment in M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2007 (8) TMI 688 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT unless the assessing authority had examined the question whether the petitioner carries on the business in the State of U.P., and thus he is not required to obtain Form F - It would be necessary for the appellate authority, in case of appeal against the assessment order, to decide the questions. Alternative remedy Held that - The Central Sales Tax, 1956 was amended by inserting Section 18-A by the Finance Act 2010 providing for appeal before the highest appellate authority of the State against the order of the assessing authority u/s 6A(2) or u/s 6A(3) - Looking into the nature of the dispute involved it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to file an appeal u/s 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy - The interim orders are discharged Decided against the assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Challenge against assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-2009.
2. Prayers for directions regarding the imposition of tax, applicability of Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, and quashing of a circular.
3. Dispute over the assessment of Central Sales Tax on transportation of imported machines.
4. Claim of the petitioner not being engaged in any business in the State of U.P.
5. Interpretation of the judgment in M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd case regarding the requirement of Form 'F' under the Central Sales Tax Act.
6. Applicability of Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act for appeals against assessment orders.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petitions challenged assessment orders for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-2009 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner sought directions to prevent tax imposition based on specific judgments and to declare certain sections inapplicable to their transactions.
2. The petitioner argued that they were not conducting business in the State of U.P., primarily providing services to national and international companies. They contended that their activities did not involve sales subject to Central Sales Tax.
3. The dispute arose when the assessing authority imposed Central Sales Tax for the relevant years, citing transportation of goods as taxable transactions. The petitioner claimed that previous assessments had not subjected them to such taxes, as their imports were for service purposes, not sales.
4. The Court referenced the M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd case, emphasizing the requirement to furnish Form 'F' for transactions involving goods transfer across states. The judgment highlighted the burden on the assessee to comply with Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
5. Considering the legal precedents and the nature of the petitioner's business, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act for a comprehensive review of the assessment orders and related issues.
6. Ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedies available through the appellate process. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner to follow the prescribed appeal procedure for a thorough examination of the disputed matters.

← Previous Next →