2016 (10) TMI 658 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption from payment of tax - Bihar Vat - Branch transfers / stock transfer - form F - whether in the absence of Form F , the petitioner can be given credit on the basis of other documents of transaction which may support the transfer of the goods from State of Bihar to State of Jharkhand? - Held that - the requirement of Form F in terms of CST Act cannot be substituted with other documents in support of proof of transactions from one branch of the petitioner in the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand. If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it can be done in that manner alone. The requirement is that such transfer will be exempt from payment of tax on furnishing of Form F . Therefore, unless the Form F is furnished, the petitioner would not be entitled to any tax credit. The petitioner cannot rely upon other documents of transactions in support of its plea of Branch transfer - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment under Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding branch transfers and the necessity of Form "F" for tax exemption.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in retail sale of leather ware, challenged assessment orders under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the mentioned assessment years. The dispute revolved around branch transfers between offices located outside Bihar and the levy of tax under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner contended that due to non-receipt of Form "F" from other states, alternative documents should suffice to prove the transfers (para 4).

The petitioner cited a previous order of the court and a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument. However, the court held that the requirement of Form "F" under the CST Act cannot be substituted by other documents to prove transactions between the petitioner's branches in Bihar and Jharkhand. The court emphasized that statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to, and tax exemption is only granted upon furnishing Form "F" (para 7).

The court distinguished the previous order cited by the petitioner, stating that while Form "F" can be provided at any stage of assessment, the question remains whether other documents can be considered for tax credit. The court clarified that the previous judgment did not address this specific issue (para 8). Similarly, the Supreme Court order mentioned by the petitioner was deemed specific to the facts of that case and not establishing a general principle (para 9).

Highlighting the statutory nature of requiring Form "F," the court emphasized that the petitioner cannot claim benefits based on alternative documents in the absence of this statutory provision (para 10). Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ applications and dismissed them accordingly (para 11).