2019 (7) TMI 1121 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - whether time needs to be granted to the revisionist for making necessary rectifications in the declaration forms issued to it? - over looking of the provisions of Rule 8-A (4) of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules 1957 - HELD THAT - Once the application u/s 12-B of the Act has been allowed by the first appellate authority in the context of the power of that authority which is co-extensive with that of the the assessing officer, the applicability of Rule 8-A (4) of the Rules could not have been restricted so as to not allow for any minor omission or mistake to be corrected in the record during the first appeal proceedings. The first appellate authority had to consider whether the correction being sought to be made by the assessee was such as may be treated as minor omission or mistake. In the facts of the present case, perusal of the orders passed by the authority as also the appellate authority, do not in any way, suggest that the claim made by the assessee on the strength of the forms (wherein corrections have been sought), was in any way in doubt - since that correction would have been made subsequent to the submission of the remand report, the first appellate authority could thereafter call for a second remand report from the Assessing Officer with respect to the correction that may have been made by the assessee on statutory declaration forms 'C' and 'F'. Submission of second copy of the statutory form 'C' No.8986892 - HELD THAT - It remains undisputed that under Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) (Registration and turnover) Rules 1957, all three copies, namely, the original, duplicate and the counter foil copies of Form 'C' are filled simultaneously by the purchasing dealer. Thus, the same always remains open to verification at all times. The fact that the assessee claimed to have furnished the duplicate copy in place of the original along with his application filed under Section 12-B of the Act owing to certain misunderstandings or mistake by his counsel and he was willing to produce the original copy, the mistake committed by the assessee would not have been fatal keeping in mind Rule 8-A (4) of the Rules. Even those mistake would remain a minor mistake or omission which could be allowed to be rectified within reasonable time. Also, as noted above, even if the assessee were to make such rectification, the same would remain open to verification upon a proper remand - In so far as the assessee had placed on record the original forms or the duplicate copy of the form and not a photocopy or other unreliable evidence, a pragmatic approach ought to have been taken keeping in mind his powers contained under Section 12-B read with Rule 8-A (4) of the Rules. Revision allowed - decided in favor of applicant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Non-acceptance of statutory declaration forms 'C' and 'F' during original assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2002-03.
- Rejection of benefit against certain forms by the first appellate authority.
- Dispute regarding correction of minor omissions and mistakes in the declaration forms.
- Interpretation of Rule 8-A(4) of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules 1957.
- Assessment of whether corrections sought by the assessee constitute minor omissions or mistakes.
- Examination of the genuineness and completeness of the claim made by the assessee.
- Consideration of the authority's power during first appeal proceedings in line with the assessing officer's authority.
- Analysis of the adequacy and completeness of the claim based on the statutory declaration forms.
- Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision on the acceptance of the explanation provided by the assessee.
- Determination of whether the rejection of the claim by the first appellate authority was justified.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The revision was filed against the Trade Tax Tribunal's order partially rejecting the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 concerning the non-acceptance of statutory declaration forms 'C' and 'F'. The applicant-assessee sought correction of minor omissions in these forms during the first appeal proceedings.

2. The first appellate authority allowed the application to introduce additional evidence but did not grant benefit for certain forms due to missing information like registration numbers and effective dates. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the current dispute.

3. The applicant argued that Rule 8-A(4) of the Rules allows for corrections of minor omissions in declaration forms, emphasizing that the genuineness of the transactions was not in doubt. The respondent contended that the deficiencies in the forms indicated inadequacy in the claim made by the assessee.

4. The court analyzed Rule 8-A(4) and concluded that the corrections sought were minor omissions that could be rectified within a reasonable period. It noted that the genuineness of the forms and transactions was not questioned, warranting a pragmatic approach in allowing the corrections.

5. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the applicant-assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter to the first appellate authority to permit corrections in the specified forms. The decision highlighted the importance of considering minor omissions in statutory forms and ensuring a fair assessment of the claim made by the assessee.