2018 (11) TMI 1780 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Discrepancy in F-Forms - claim of the petitioner is that the value was wrongly reported in the CST returns and that the amount indicated in the F forms was more than the turnover - petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax, for the purpose of filing an appeal - HELD THAT - The petitioner made payment of ₹ 9,59,190/-, representing 12.5% of the taxes for the year 2013-2014 (CST). The amount was paid on 13.11.2018 - the writ petition is ordered, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved: Challenge to order under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; Delay in filing appeal; Rejection of 'F' forms by Assessing Officer; Seeking opportunity to explain discrepancies; Payment of disputed tax; Remand of matter to 1st respondent for fresh orders.

Analysis:

The judgment dealt with a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the impugned order with a delay, which was not entertained due to the delay being beyond the condonable period. The petitioner sought relief, citing an employee's malpractices leading to the suspension and disciplinary proceedings, claiming ignorance of the situation. The contention was regarding the rejection of 'F' forms by the Assessing Officer, alleging discrepancies in the value of goods transferred to a branch office. The petitioner requested an opportunity to clarify the reported values, asserting that the CST returns had inaccuracies.

In a significant development, an interim order was passed by the court, granting the petitioner a conditional opportunity. The petitioner had already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax for filing an appeal, but due to the inaction of the suspended employee, further payment equivalent to 12.5% was required within a week for the petitioner to be granted another chance. Subsequently, the petitioner complied by paying the additional amount, leading to the remand of the matter back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent to explain the discrepancies, with fresh orders to be passed after a personal hearing. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and pending petitions were closed without any costs incurred.