9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 847 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssuance of C-form - failure to issue C-form for certain supplies - stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 in their counter-affidavit is that the C Forms have not been issued to respondent No. 5 due to non-inclusion of particulars of the purchases made by respondent No.5 from the petitioner No. 1 in its returns filed with the Department for the relevant period 2012-13 - applicability of time limit as provided in Section 28 of the DVAT Act - HELD THAT - The respondent No.5 is an undertaking of the GNCTD, and respondents No.1 to 3 are also GNCTD, and thus, the omissions made by respondent No.5 could not be a ground for respondents No.1 to 3 not to issue the C Forms, has no merit. This is for the reason that respondent No.5 though an undertaking of the GNCTD, is an assessee under the law and is bound by the same discipline of law as any other entity would be, whether or not, the same is an instrumentality of the State. The provisions of the DVAT Act and the CST Act apply to respondent No.5 with the same force, as they would apply to any other dealer or entity, and do not treat state instrumentalities differently. The petitioner cannot seek a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to issue the C Form for the Financial Year 2012-13 after over four years, when the transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.5 were not disclosed in the return filed by respondent No.5, and no rectification of the return was sought to be made within the period of limitation. The respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to release C Forms to respondent No.5 with respect to purchases made by respondent No.5 from petitioner No.1 during the Financial Year 2012-13 - This direction shall, however, remain suspended till the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, are decided and this direction shall abide by the decision that the Supreme Court renders - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of 'C' Forms by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD. 2. Acceptance of 'C' and 'E1' Forms for the FY 2012-13. 3. Restraint against coercive steps including levy of penalty, interest, and differential tax. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Issuance of 'C' Forms by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD: The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD (respondent No.1) to issue 'C' Forms to Delhi Transco Limited (respondent No.5) for purchases made during the financial year 2012-13. The contracts between the petitioner and respondent No.5 included provisions for the issuance of requisite sales tax declaration forms by the employer (respondent No.5). Despite completion of the contracts and issuance of completion certificates, respondent No.5 failed to provide 'C' Forms for certain supplies, leading to additional tax liabilities for the petitioner. Respondent No.5 admitted its failure in applying for the 'C' Forms in a communication dated 23.02.2018, stating that the forms were not issued due to non-inclusion in 'C' Form Return for the respective financial years inadvertently. 2. Acceptance of 'C' and 'E1' Forms for the FY 2012-13: The petitioner also sought directions for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to accept 'C' and 'E1' Forms for the FY 2012-13 and make assessments accordingly to grant a refund. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 argued that the 'C' Forms were not issued due to non-inclusion of particulars of the purchases in the returns filed by respondent No.5 for the relevant period. They cited Section 28 of the DVAT Act, which allows correction of discrepancies in returns within one year following the year of the tax period. The respondents contended that the statutory period of one year for revising returns under Section 28 of the DVAT Act also applies to returns filed under the CST Act, and respondent No.5 cannot seek rectification or revision of its returns for the year 2012-13 at this belated stage. 3. Restraint against coercive steps including levy of penalty, interest, and differential tax: The petitioner sought restraint against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from taking coercive steps, including the levy of penalty, interest, and payment of differential tax. The court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that it was suffering due to respondent No.5's failure to disclose relevant transactions in their returns and not applying for 'C' Forms within time. However, the court held that respondent No.5, though an undertaking of the GNCTD, is an assessee under the law and is bound by the same legal discipline as any other entity. The court concluded that the petitioner could not seek a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to issue 'C' Forms for the FY 2012-13 after over four years when the transactions were not disclosed in the returns filed by respondent No.5, and no rectification was sought within the period of limitation. Conclusion: The court directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to release 'C' Forms to respondent No.5 for purchases made during the FY 2012-13. However, this direction was suspended until the pending Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court were decided, and the direction would abide by the Supreme Court's decision. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
|
