2021 (7) TMI 1266 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reopening of assessments - refusal to permit the petitioner to file F forms - delay in submission of the forms - interstate transfer to branch unit at Karnataka - assessment year 2011-12 - HELD THAT - As per the amended rule, the assessee is to furnish the requisite declaration/certificate within three months of the assessment year, while in the pre-amended Rule, he had option to file the declaration/certificate in the course of the assessment proceedings whenever the same was initiated as per law. In both the situations, however, the proviso to the Rule permitted the prescribed authority to condone the delay in furnishing declaration/certificate provided sufficient cause is shown - under the amended scheme, the dealer in order to avail the benefit of the proviso to the Rule must explain the delay from the date of expiry of the truncated time frame i.e., three months beyond the assessment year and not from the date of the assessment proceedings. Instant case relates to the assessment year 2011-12. Hence, the dealer was required to file the declaration forms within June, 2012 as per the amended rule. Admittedly, he failed to submit the declaration forms within the said period. In 2015 show cause notice was issued and ex parte assessment order was passed on 27.03.2015, as the petitioner did not participate in the said proceedings. Thereafter, demand notice dated 09.11.2015 was issued and as the petitioner did not pay the tax liability, notice of attachment of land was issued on 09.02.2018. The plea of closure of business for the delay in submission of declaration forms is extremely facile and evasive. The forms related to interstate transportation of goods between the Head office of the assessee to its branch office in the assessment year 2011-12. Under such circumstances, it is not understood why the assessee failed to obtain the declaration forms from its branch office and submit the same since 2012 - for the cause to be sufficient, explanation offered must provide justification for the entire period during which the assessee had failed to furnish forms i.e., from 2012 to 2019 as in the present case. While the proviso to Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules gives opportunity to the dealer to make belated submission of declaration/certificate when sufficient cause is shown, the said proviso cannot be permitted to be abused by an indolent and indifferent dealer, who at a belated stage approaches the authorities without proper cause for submission of the declarations/certificates and seeks to reopen a concluded assessment proceedings on such score - the factual matrix of the case does not disclose any justifiable or sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in submission of the declaration forms. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the assessing authority - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Refusal to permit filing of 'F' forms for interstate transfer and reopening assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought permission to file 'F' forms for interstate transfer to his branch unit at Karnataka and reopen assessment proceedings following closure of his business. The petitioner claimed ignorance of assessment proceedings and order until recovery proceedings were initiated in 2018. The 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's request citing insufficient cause for the delay in filing the 'F' forms. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner did not participate in assessment proceedings intentionally, and the application to submit 'F' forms was rightly dismissed. The Court examined Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules, noting the amended provision requiring submission of forms within three months after the end of the relevant period. The Court differentiated the amended rule from the pre-amended version, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to justify delay in submission. The Court highlighted that the dealer failed to submit the forms within the stipulated period, leading to an ex parte assessment order in 2015.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument of business closure as a reason for the delay, emphasizing the dealer's obligation to submit the forms since 2012. The Court acknowledged the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' but stressed the need for a justifiable explanation for the entire period of delay. The Court cautioned against abusing the proviso to Rule 12(7) by approaching authorities belatedly without valid cause. Ultimately, the Court found no justifiable cause for the delay in submitting the declaration forms, upholding the assessing authority's decision. The Writ Petition was dismissed with no cost implications.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's interpretation of the statutory provisions, consideration of factual circumstances, and emphasis on justifying delays in compliance with tax regulations.