2017 (1) TMI 1778 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Refusal to accept F-forms - only contention of the petitioner is that Form-F was received belatedly from their counter-part in West Bengal and that the matter requires sympathetic consideration - HELD THAT - It is true, as rightly contended by the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Department that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. In the first instance, the petitioner failed to produce F-Forms before the order of assessment was passed on 27-3-2015. In the 2nd instance, he failed to file either a regular statutory appeal or a writ petition, as against the 1st order dated 27-5-2015 refusing to accept the F-Forms. But the fundamental fact is that if F-Forms are genuine and if they were issued belatedly by the counter-part of the petitioner, without any mistake on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner could be given one opportunity. Otherwise, the benefit conferred by statute will become nugatory. The matter remitted back to the 1st respondent for a fresh consideration in the light of the F-Forms produced by the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of request to accept F-Forms by the 1st respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Telangana High Court, with Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon'ble Ms Justice J. Uma Devi, addressed the challenge raised by a dealer against the rejection of their request to accept 7 numbers of F-Forms by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had passed an order of assessment for the year 2011-12 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on 27-3-2015, completing the assessment as the petitioner failed to produce the F-Forms. Subsequently, the petitioner contended that the F-Forms were received and made representations on 21-5-2015 and in September 2016, which were both rejected by the 1st respondent. The petitioner's argument centered around the belated receipt of Form-F from their counterpart in West Bengal, seeking sympathetic consideration.

The Court acknowledged the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner for failing to produce the F-Forms before the assessment order and not challenging the initial rejection through an appeal or writ petition. However, the Court emphasized the importance of genuine F-Forms issued belatedly by the petitioner's counterpart, stating that if there was no fault on the petitioner's part, they should be given an opportunity to rectify the situation. The Court highlighted that denying this opportunity would render the statutory benefit of F-Forms meaningless.

In light of the above analysis, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for a fresh consideration based on the F-Forms produced by the petitioner. The judgment concluded by stating that any pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition would stand closed, and no costs were awarded in this matter.