2015 (2) TMI 1295 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - levy of tax - C Form not filed - reversion of the input tax credit - Held that - The petitioner is entitled to file Form of Declaration / Certificate relating to the year at any time before the final assessment of the accounts of that year. In this case, the petitioner has filed C Form in original before the authority of the respondent and an endorsement has also been made by the concerned officer. Admittedly, both the parties admit that the receipt will be in-triplicate and the seller will retain a copy and furnish the original with the Department - When the authority has misplaced the original of the document for whatever be the reason, there is no hard and fast rule to deny the request of the petitioner for accepting the duplicate copy of the document, which is available with the petitioner. The matters are remitted back to the respondent for considering afresh and for passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking Writs of Certiorari to quash arbitrary orders regarding 'C' Form filings and tax payments.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in magnesite powder, contended that they had submitted 'C' Forms in original to the Commercial Tax Officer and paid the necessary tax. They received a notice claiming non-receipt of the 'C' Form, which the petitioner refuted, stating they had filed it with necessary acknowledgments. The respondent passed orders without considering objections, leading to reversion of input tax credit and tax imposition.

The respondent argued that as per Rule 12(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, if a 'C' Form is lost, an indemnity bond must be furnished. The petitioner, however, cited Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, allowing the filing of duplicate 'C' Forms before final assessment without an indemnity bond.

The court noted that Rule 10(2) permits dealers to file duplicate 'C' Forms before final assessment, as done by the petitioner. The respondent's reliance on Rule 12(2) for an indemnity bond was deemed incorrect since the original 'C' Form was not lost. The court directed the respondent to accept the duplicate 'C' Form from the petitioner without insisting on an indemnity bond.

Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was allowed to submit the duplicate 'C' Form, and the respondent was instructed to decide the issue afresh without influence from the previous orders. The petitioner was given a deadline to appear before the respondent and submit the necessary duplicate 'C' Form.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing that the respondent should not demand an indemnity bond for the duplicate 'C' Form.