2016 (11) TMI 30 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of tax - inter-state sales - defective C-Forms - petitioner applied for return of C-Forms for correction - Held that - there are several decisions as well as circulars of the commissioners, which state that defective forms, such as C-Forms , Form-F etc., should be returned, so that the dealer is given an opportunity to rectify the defects. Direction to the petitioner to appear before the respondent, within a period of two weeks to produce the C-Forms , which are available with them and on the said date, the respondent shall return the defective C-Forms and within a period of two weeks thereafter, the defects should be rectified by the petitioner and the C-Forms should be resubmitted. While resubmitting those forms, it is open to the petitioner to submit the fresh C-Forms , if, by then, they have acquired, and on receipt of the same, the respondent shall exercise his powers under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, and re-do the assessment, under the said two heads alone, by passing a speaking order, on merits and in accordance with law. Petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act for 2014-15 regarding levy of tax on interstate sales turnover covered by defective 'C-Forms' and those not covered by 'C-Forms'.

Analysis:

In this case, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged an assessment order for the year 2014-15 concerning the levy of tax on interstate sales turnover. The petitioner contended that they had submitted various forms for verification in response to a pre-revision notice, including 'C-Forms,' Form-X extract, Form-I, and Form-F, but the respondent found certain 'C-Forms' defective and rejected others without allowing the petitioner to rectify the defects before completing the assessment. The petitioner only learned about the non-acceptance of certain 'C-Forms' after seeing the assessment order, prompting them to request the return of defective forms for rectification.

The petitioner had submitted a letter to the respondent requesting the return of defective 'C-Forms' to rectify any identified defects, but the respondent did not consider this representation. The petitioner approached the court through a Writ Petition seeking relief. The respondent, in their Counter affidavit, acknowledged receiving the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2016.

The court noted that the respondent's failure to return defective forms for rectification was contrary to established legal principles and circulars requiring such action to allow dealers to rectify defects. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent within two weeks to produce the 'C-Forms,' with the respondent returning the defective forms. The petitioner was then granted two weeks to rectify the defects and resubmit the forms. Additionally, the petitioner could submit fresh 'C-Forms' if acquired during this period. The respondent was instructed to re-do the assessment under the specified heads, passing a speaking order on merits and in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the court disposed of the Writ Petition with the above directions, without imposing any costs. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was also closed as a result of this judgment.