2018 (1) TMI 1251 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption on consignment sale - Rosin - Pine oil - turpentine - dis-allowance of the exemption granted on the strength of Form C and proposed to assess turnover at 12.6% - duplicate forms - Held that - Having regard to the Forms (Original, duplicate or counter foil) and placing reliance on the decision rendered in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Sales, Tax, Madhya Pradesh, 1989 (1) TMI 351 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)-I, has passed the orders, stating that, there is nothing wrong in filing duplicate forms, for availing concessional rate. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, has referred to the Rules and accordingly, concurred with the views of the appellate Authority. Merely because the assessee had not made any submission, before the Assessing Officer that he had lost the original, it cannot be contended that he cannot made such submission, before the Appellate Authority, which is also a fact finding authority. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., and another 2005 (7) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , while dealing with the belated filing of statutory forms, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the provisions requiring filing of declaration forms along with the return is a directory provision and not a mandatory provision. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Sufficiency of duplicate Form F for availing concessional tax rate.
2. Applicability of the decision in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh to Form F.
3. Consideration of Rule 10(2) of the CST Rule for accepting duplicate forms.
4. Compliance with Rule 12(2) and 12(3) of the CST Rule for obtaining duplicate forms.
5. Dealer's promise to file the original form and request for extension.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Sufficiency of Duplicate Form F for Availing Concessional Tax Rate:
The core issue was whether the submission of a duplicate Form F instead of the original was sufficient for availing a concessional tax rate. The Tribunal held that the filing of the duplicate Form F was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 8(4) of the CST Act and Rule 12(1) of the CST Rules, thereby entitling the assessee to the concessional rate. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, where it was held that the submission of a duplicate form instead of the original was adequate compliance.

2. Applicability of the Decision in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh to Form F:
The Tribunal considered the decision in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, which dealt with Form C, and applied its principles to Form F. The Tribunal noted that both forms fall under the CST Act and Rules, and thus the rationale applied to Form C was relevant to Form F as well.

3. Consideration of Rule 10(2) of the CST Rule for Accepting Duplicate Forms:
The Tribunal examined Rule 10(2) of the CST (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957, which permits the filing of duplicate forms if the original is lost. The Tribunal concluded that there was no wrong in filing a duplicate Form F for availing the concessional tax rate, aligning with the provisions of Rule 10(2).

4. Compliance with Rule 12(2) and 12(3) of the CST Rule for Obtaining Duplicate Forms:
The Tribunal reviewed Rule 12(2) and (3) of the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which outline the procedure for obtaining duplicate forms. The Tribunal found that the assessee's submission of the duplicate Form F complied with these rules, thereby validating the claim for a concessional tax rate.

5. Dealer's Promise to File the Original Form and Request for Extension:
The Tribunal noted that the dealer had initially promised to file the original form and requested an extension. However, the Tribunal found that the subsequent submission of the duplicate form was sufficient compliance. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority, being a fact-finding body, had the discretion to accept the duplicate form, especially when the original was lost.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), which allowed the assessee to avail the concessional tax rate based on the duplicate Form F. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the filing of the duplicate Form F constituted sufficient compliance with the relevant statutory provisions. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, affirming the assessee's entitlement to the concessional tax rate based on the duplicate form.

← Previous Next →