9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 994 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection C-Form - sale and purchase of building material i.e. Rori, Bajri, Sand etc. - C-Form rejected on the ground that single form was submitted for transaction of whole year 2008-09 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has correctly interpreted scheme of the Act and denied benefit of single C Form for the entire year. Tribunal has considered judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 702 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT which is basis of present appeal - Calcutta High Court has dealt with question of form 'F' whereas present matter relates to form 'C' and provisions relating to both forms are not identical. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of order passed by VAT Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Appellant under Section 36 of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Rejection of a single C form for the year 2008-09 by the Respondent, leading to a demand of Rs. 2,09,949/- on the Appellant. 3. Interpretation of rule 12(1) of the Rules regarding the submission of declaration form C for concessional tax rate under section 8(4) of the CST Act. 4. Comparison of judgments by different High Courts on the validity of a single C form covering transactions of one quarter. 5. Dismissal of the appeal by the High Court based on the correct interpretation of the law and the findings of the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The Appellant, a Partnership firm, filed an appeal seeking the quashing of the order passed by the VAT Tribunal under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, prompting the Appellant to challenge this decision. 2. The issue arose when the Respondent rejected a single C form submitted by the Appellant for the year 2008-09, specifically for transactions with Pawan Trading Company. This rejection led to a demand of Rs. 2,09,949/- on the Appellant, which was contested through various legal channels. 3. The crux of the matter lay in the interpretation of rule 12(1) of the Rules concerning the submission of declaration form C to claim the benefit of a concessional tax rate under the CST Act. The Appellant argued that the single C form for the entire year should not be rejected based on the duration it covered, citing a judgment from the Calcutta High Court for support. 4. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions. They highlighted the enabling provision in the second proviso to rule 12(1) allowing for a single form C for transactions of a single quarter. The Tribunal also referenced judgments from different High Courts to support their reasoning, ultimately upholding the rejection of the single C form while suggesting the Appellant be given an opportunity to furnish separate forms for the remaining quarters. 5. Upon review, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision. They emphasized that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the law and distinguished between the cases involving form 'F' and form 'C'. The High Court noted the specific provisions related to form 'C' and agreed with the Tribunal's findings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues and the comprehensive legal reasoning behind the judgment delivered by the High Court in this case.
|
