2019 (8) TMI 1161 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Permission for generation of Form F for the 2nd and 3rd quarter of financial year 2012-13 online - whether in the admitted facts that the 2nd and 3rd quarters for the financial year 2012-13 suffered defects on the information on stock transfer and though the position was clarified in the annual returns whether it would entitle the petitioner to the relief prayed in the writ petition? HELD THAT - Section 6A of the CST Act lays the burden of proof in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale on the dealer who claims that the transfer of the stocks is otherwise than by way of sale and for which purpose he has to obtain a declaration duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority along with the evidence of dispatch of such goods. However, if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration then the movement of transfer would be treated as sale. An onus is cast upon the transferee-dealer to generate Form F by filling up the particulars of the stocks received by him from its branches outside the State and for such purpose the transfereedealer has to fill up the correct figures in the returns so filed in each quarters and not in casual manner. In the present case the petitioner has not only defaulted in furnishing correct particulars for the 2nd and 3rd quarters for the period 2012-13 but also failed to file a revised return within the prescribed time although he claims to have corrected the details of stock transfer in his annual return. The prayer seeking direction to the Commercial Taxes department to permit him to generate Form F on the basis of the figures present in the annual returns cannot be accepted for apart from the fact that the fault is entirely attributable to the petitioner, Section 6A of the CST Act makes it clear that if the burden of establishing such stock transfer is not discharged by production of declaration form, the transfer is to be treated as sale and the petitioner should have been aware of such consequences which are so eloquent on the statute book - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for generation of Form 'F' for 2nd and 3rd quarter of financial year 2012-13.
2. Defects in returns filed regarding stock transfer.
3. Failure to revise quarterly returns within prescribed time.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding stock transfer and generation of Form 'F'.
5. Claim of rectification based on annual returns.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in trading, sought a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to allow generation of Form 'F' for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the financial year 2012-13 online. The issue arose due to defects in returns filed regarding stock transfer, leading to discrepancies in the declared amounts of stock receipts from branches outside Bihar.

2. The Court noted that while the petitioner claimed to have rectified the stock transfer details in annual returns, no revised returns were filed for the 2nd and 3rd quarters within the prescribed time under the VAT Act. Despite recommendations for rectification, the online generation of Form 'F' was not permitted due to incorrect particulars in the quarterly returns.

3. Section 24(7) of the VAT Act allows for revision of returns before the due date, but the petitioner failed to do so, leading to a mismatch between the filed returns and actual stock transfer figures. The Court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to provide accurate information and revise returns promptly.

4. The judgment highlighted the statutory provisions under the CST Act and Bihar Rules, placing the onus on the transferee-dealer to correctly fill and submit Form 'F' for stock received from outside the State. The failure to do so, coupled with the lack of timely revision of quarterly returns, led to the dismissal of the petitioner's plea for direction to generate Form 'F' based on annual return figures.

5. Despite arguments citing previous judgments and circulars, the Court held that the petitioner's lapse in fulfilling obligations within the statutory timeframe, combined with the discrepancies in returns, did not warrant granting the requested relief. The dismissal of the writ petition was based on the petitioner's failure to comply with statutory requirements and rectify the defects in a timely manner.