2016 (4) TMI 612 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Disallowance of certificates in D form - Forms were undated and there was no reference to any purchase order therein - omission to fill in the date of issue of the form - Held that - Once the relevant forms specified the invoices or bills or cash memoranda, including the dates thereof, and the Assessing Officer or the authorities did not have any material to detract from the particulars indicated in the D form issued by some other Government, at least the Board should have taken a rational view of the matter without being hyper technical in insisting that every i should be dotted or every t be crossed. That does not imply that the Board would be reckless to accept whatever D form is submitted by a dealer since the same would have emanated from one Government or the other. It is only to emphasize that a rational approach should be adopted in assessing a shortcoming in the form of the present kind and unless there are additional grounds for suspecting the transaction, the mere omission to refer to the purchase order or to fill in the date of the issue of the form should not prompt the Board to discard the certificate. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to submit the same D forms before the Assessing Authority who shall take cognizance thereof and give due credit therefor to the petitioner. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of "D" form certificates by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board due to lack of dates and purchase order references.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta addresses the complaint raised by the petitioner regarding the hyper-technical disallowance of "D" form certificates obtained from the Government of Mizoram by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board. The impugned order dated April 17, 2015 highlighted that the "D" certificates lacked dates of issue and any reference to purchase orders, leading to the disallowance of a significant claim amount. The Court observed that if the "D" forms had included issue dates and purchase order details, or if the petitioner had produced corresponding purchase orders, the Board might have accepted the certificates. The petitioner's reliance on a previous judgment emphasized that omission of the date of issue would not be fatal if transaction particulars were evident from the form. Additionally, the judgment recognized that not every transaction, even with a government entity like the Government of Mizoram, necessitates a written purchase order. The Court stressed the need for a rational approach by the Board, suggesting that unless there are additional grounds for suspicion, mere omissions in the form should not lead to rejection. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner's plea, setting aside the impugned order and granting the petitioner an opportunity to resubmit the "D" forms to the Assessing Authority for due credit without any cost implications. The Court also directed the provision of urgent certified website copies of the order to the concerned parties upon request, subject to formalities.