2019 (11) TMI 1158 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Stock transfer sales - duplicate C-Forms - petitioner submitted that even in the absence of original C-forms, the Assessee is entitled to file the duplicate forms before the Assessing Officer, who inturn, can consider the same after verifying its genuineness - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has chosen to decide the issue viz., Sales against form C, against the petitioner only on the reason that the petitioner has not filed the proof of acknowledgement for filing original C-forms before the then Assessing Officer and further considering the fact that the Assessing Officer is not disputing the fact that the duplicate C-forms were filed before him, this Court is of the view that the Assessing Officer shall consider the duplicate C-forms filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well. The impugned order is set aside only in respect of the issue regarding sales against form C and corresponding penalty - the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsidering the said issue after considering the duplicate copies of C form already filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment order for the year 2010-2011 regarding sales against Form-C and Stock Transfer sales not covered by declaration Form-F.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dealing with two issues: Sales against Form-C and Stock Transfer sales not covered by declaration Form-F. The petitioner confined the relief in the writ petition only to challenge the assessment made in respect of Sales against Form-C, as the issue of Stock Transfer sales was pending rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner contended that even without the original C-forms, they were entitled to file duplicate forms, which the Assessing Officer could consider after verifying their genuineness.

The Additional Government Pleader for the respondents assured that the Assessing Officer would consider the duplicate C-forms submitted by the petitioner and pass fresh orders if found genuine. The court, after considering the facts and circumstances, noted that the Assessing Officer had decided against the petitioner for not producing proof of acknowledgement for filing original C-forms, despite the submission of duplicate C-forms. The court directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue of Sales against Form-C, considering the duplicate copies of C-forms already filed, and to pass fresh orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

The court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the impugned order only in respect of sales against Form-C and corresponding penalty, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration within four weeks. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.