2018 (12) TMI 919 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of order - rejection the reason that the original C-Forms were not filed by the petitioners - inter-state sales - Held that - There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners, along with their returns, furnished those C-Forms in original, since in the counter affidavits, the said fact is admitted. However, those original C-Forms were misplaced by the office of the respondent and are not traceable till today. When such being the admitted position of fact, the respondent is not entitled to harp upon Rule 12(3) of the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and insist the petitioners to furnish the duplicate C-Forms, as prescribed under the above said Rule. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed the duplicate C-Forms, when they made their representation in pursuant to the orders of assessment passed against them. Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the duplicate C-Forms and pass appropriate orders, based on such C-Forms, as though the petitioners have complied with in furnishing the C-Forms in respect of their inter-state Sales. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh orders on the rectification petitions, by considering the duplicate C-Forms already filed by the petitioners - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders rejecting rectification petitions based on non-submission of original C-Forms in inter-state sales for assessment year 2007-2008.

Analysis:
The petitioners, different Assessees, challenged the rejection of their rectification petitions regarding the submission of original C-Forms for inter-state sales in the assessment year 2007-2008. The petitioners sold goods to registered dealers in other states, paying CST at 3% with a condition to submit C-Forms issued under Section 8(3) of the CST Act, 1956 to the Assessing Authority. Despite submitting all original C-Forms on 14.02.2008, the respondent issued notices of proposal in 2011, claiming non-submission. The petitioners, through letters, informed the respondent and submitted indemnity bonds and attested C-Form counterfoils, seeking rectification. The respondent rejected the rectification petitions solely on the grounds of original C-Forms not being filed, leading to the writ petitions.

In response, the respondent admitted the receipt of original C-Forms by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, acknowledged in the dealer local delivery note. However, due to mishandling, the original C-Forms were misplaced and not traceable. The dealers submitted representations with duplicate marked portions of C-Forms attested by other state dealers, but not the duplicate C-Forms as per Rule 12(3) of CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the original C-Forms were lost by the respondent, the petitioners should be allowed to submit duplicate C-Forms for assessment. Citing a previous court order under similar circumstances, the counsel emphasized the acceptance of duplicate C-Forms by the Assessing Officer for fresh decisions.

The court noted that the original C-Forms were admitted to be submitted by the petitioners but were lost by the respondent. Considering this, the court held that the respondent cannot insist on Rule 12(3) compliance for duplicate C-Forms when the originals were misplaced. The court referenced a previous decision where the petitioner was allowed to file duplicate C-Forms in similar circumstances. Consequently, the court allowed both writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the duplicate C-Forms already submitted by the petitioners for fresh orders within six weeks, providing a personal hearing opportunity to the petitioners.