9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 995 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRequirement of extra amount of Central Sales Tax - non-issuance of C-Form - Form-C was not issued by the HEC Ltd., to the petitioner Company, for the reason that the same was not supplied to HEC Ltd., by the State Government - HELD THAT - Since the amount of ₹ 30,00,000/-(thirty lacs) has already been deposited, which is kept in the custody of this Court, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to make the payment of ₹ 28,61,893/- in favour of the petitioner Company, who in turn, shall deposit the said amount being the assessed differential amount of CST in the Government Treasury, within the period of ten days after receiving the cheque / draft. The remaining amount shall be refunded back by the Registrar General of this Court to the respondent HEC Ltd. Further it is made clear that since the petitioner Company is not at fault in making the delay in deposit of the CST, no interest shall be levied from the petitioner and ultimately, if it is found that Form-C could not be given to the HEC Ltd., by the State Government for any valid reason, the liability to pay the interest, if any, shall be of the respondent HEC Ltd., only. In case, Form-C is issued by the State Government to the respondent HEC Ltd., this respondent shall be entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 28,61,893/- from the State Government itself. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Non-issuance of Form-C by respondent-HEC Ltd. to petitioner Company leading to extra Central Sales Tax (CST) burden. 2. Dispute between respondent HEC Ltd. and State Government regarding Form-C issuance. 3. Assessment of differential CST amount on petitioner Company for financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Legal implications and resolution of the CST burden issue. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the issue of non-issuance of Form-C by respondent-HEC Ltd. to the petitioner Company, causing an additional burden of Central Sales Tax (CST) on the petitioner. The petitioner supplied materials to HEC Ltd. at a concessional rate of 2% CST but did not receive the necessary Form-C, resulting in an extra CST liability. The Court noted the petitioner's lack of fault in this matter. 2. A dispute between respondent HEC Ltd. and the State Government regarding Form-C issuance was highlighted. The respondent HEC Ltd. had procured raw materials at a concessional CST rate, expecting to receive Form-C from the State Government. However, due to non-issuance of Form-C by the State, HEC Ltd. failed to provide Form-C to the petitioner, leading to the CST burden on the petitioner. 3. The judgment detailed the assessment of the differential CST amount on the petitioner for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The total amount assessed as the differential CST burden on the petitioner was quantified at ?28,61,893 for transactions in both writ applications. 4. In the resolution of the CST burden issue, the Court directed the respondent HEC Ltd. to deposit a specific amount, which was done, and ordered the payment of the assessed CST amount to the petitioner. It was clarified that no interest would be levied on the petitioner for any delay in CST deposit. The judgment also outlined that if Form-C is eventually issued by the State Government to HEC Ltd., the liability for any interest payment would lie with HEC Ltd. In conclusion, the judgment allowed both writ applications, providing directions for the payment of the assessed CST amount and addressing the legal implications of the non-issuance of Form-C and the resulting burden on the petitioner.
|
