2018 (10) TMI 886 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Higher Rate of tax / CST - inter-State sales against deferred payment - seeking permission to produce C-Forms after a gap of more than 10 year - Held that - The assessment years are 2005-06 and 2006-07 and after more than a decade, the assessee cannot be permitted to produce C Forms which relates to long prior assessment years - The effect of Section 8 of CST Act is succinctly that the provision is mandatory and has to be strictly complied with. The very submission of the assessee that if time is granted to produce C-Forms even now, indicates that there is no C-Form furnished by the purchasing dealer till now. Levy of higher tax under Section 8(2) of the CST Act is perfectly justified - revision dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding inter-State sales and C-Forms.
2. Application of concessional tax rates under Section 8(1) and 8(4) of the CST Act.
3. Compliance with mandatory requirements for availing concessional rates.
4. Effect of failing to produce C-Forms for deferred payments in inter-State sales.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala involved a revision against an order of the Tribunal regarding the assessment of higher tax on inter-State sales. The first issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the assessment of higher tax on a portion of sales where C-Forms were produced for part of the amount but did not include deferred payments made after the C-Forms were furnished. The second issue questioned whether the C-Form issued for a composite sale transaction should still qualify for concessional rates under Section 8(1) of the CST Act despite deferred payments not reflected in the C-Form.

The Senior Counsel for the assessee argued that the sales were conducted based on provisional bills, with final bills raised after delivery, including the entire sale consideration. The purchasing dealer provided C-Forms related to provisional bills, but deferred payments were made post-sale completion. The Assessing Officer and subsequent authorities levied higher tax under Section 8(2) of the CST Act due to the portion left out from the C-Form. The counsel cited case laws to support the contention that C-Forms could be produced during assessment proceedings. The Government Pleader emphasized strict compliance with statutory mandates, citing relevant Supreme Court precedent.

The Court highlighted the requirements under Section 8(1) and 8(4) of the CST Act for availing concessional rates, emphasizing the necessity of C-Forms filled by the purchasing dealer. It noted that only the portion of the bill amount covered by the C-Form could be taxed at rates under Section 8(1). The Court rejected the relevance of judgments from other High Courts due to the absence of C-Forms for deferred payments. It cited a Division Bench decision prohibiting late production of C-Forms for past assessment years.

In aligning with the Revenue, the Court referenced the mandatory nature of the CST Act provisions and the need for strict compliance. It quoted Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the strict construction of statutory provisions for concessional tax rates. The Court concluded that the absence of C-Forms for deferred payments justified the levy of higher tax under Section 8(2) of the CST Act. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the revisions and leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.