2015 (3) TMI 555 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment in absence of forms 'C' and 'F' that have been produced subsequently - Rejection of request of Re-opening of the assessment - Held that - The assessing officer cannot deny the request to re-open the case of the petitioner that higher rate of tax, than that has been prescribed under section 8(1), has been levied in the absence of forms 'C' and 'F' that have been produced subsequently. The authority shall not deny the request of the petitioner for re-opening the final assessment and only thing he has to consider is as to whether sufficient cause for re-opening the assessment or not. That apart, there is no proposal for levying penalty and the authority has proceeded to impose the penalty and notice informing the same was also. - The petitioner is also supported by the decision of this court in VISPRO FOUNDRY ENGINEERS LIMITED v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ADYAR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, MADRAS. (1990 (12) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). Therefore, the petitioner's request that the respondent shall consider the declaration under forms 'C' and 'F' covering the transactions to the extent of ₹ 18,22,54,687/- may be looked into by the authorities concerned. Since the authority has not taken into consideration the forms and that there was no proposal to levy penalty which has been done without giving opportunity to be petitioner and that the provisions mentioned supra clearly contemplate that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Re-opening of assessment due to non-consideration of forms 'C' and 'F'.
2. Authority's power to extend time for filing forms 'C' and 'F'.
3. Denial of re-opening the assessment.
4. Imposition of penalty without proper consideration.
5. Legal precedent supporting the petitioner's case.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner requested the re-opening of the assessment as forms 'C' and 'F' were produced after the assessment order was passed. The authority did not consider this request, leading to the dispute. The court held that the assessing officer cannot deny the request for re-opening solely based on the late submission of forms 'C' and 'F'.

2. The court referred to sections 6 and 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, along with Rule 12(1) and (7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1956, to establish that the authority has the power to extend the time for filing forms 'C' and 'F'. These provisions were crucial in determining the authority's obligations in this case.

3. The court emphasized that the authority should not deny the petitioner's request for re-opening the assessment without considering if there was a sufficient cause for re-opening. The judgment highlighted that the authority must assess whether there is a legitimate reason to re-open the assessment, rather than outright denial.

4. The court noted that there was no proposal for levying a penalty, yet the authority proceeded to impose a penalty without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond. This action was deemed improper, as the authority should have followed due process before imposing any penalties.

5. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision to support their case, emphasizing that the authority should consider the declaration under forms 'C' and 'F' covering specific transactions. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument and directed the authority to re-consider the case, giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and instructing the authority to re-assess the case, giving the petitioner a chance to present their case properly and in accordance with the law.