9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 512 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPermission to place the C-Forms which have now been located - order challenged on the short ground that after the appellate order was passed, in the residential house of the Proprietor of the respective petitioners, certain C-Forms had been located on 12.10.2020 which were earlier misplaced; and the details of the traced-out C-Forms are mentioned in para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the respective Writ Petitions - HELD THAT - In GODREJ AGROVET LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NOVARTIS HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY NOVARTIS NUTRITION INDIA PVT. LTD.) VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, BENZ CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA 2005 (10) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the question whether the proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 enables a dealer to file C-Forms after making of the assessment by the competent authority and answered the question in the affirmative by holding that It shall be open to the dealer to produce the C forms even now before the assessing authority and the same shall be received, provided sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner for the belated filing of the C forms. The impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of each of the petitioners herein are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the orders passed by the 1st respondent regarding assessment under the CST Act, 1956. 2. Discovery of misplaced C-Forms after the appellate order was passed. 3. Allegation of assessment being barred by limitation. 4. Non-functioning of the Telangana VAT Tribunal. 5. Reliance on legal precedents for filing C-Forms after assessment. Analysis: 1. The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the 1st respondent after their appeals were dismissed, citing the discovery of misplaced C-Forms at the proprietor's residence post-appellate order. The petitioners sought to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the 2nd respondent to present the located C-Forms. They also raised the issue of limitation for the assessment period, which was not raised before the Appellate Authority. 2. The petitioners relied on the judgment in Godrej Agrovet Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru and orders from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to support their case. The legal position established by the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the filing of C-Forms after assessment was not disputed by the respondent's counsel, who agreed to remand the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. 3. The High Court allowed both Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matters back to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners were granted three weeks to file the C-Forms along with an explanation for the delay. They were also permitted to raise the additional ground of limitation for the assessment period. The 2nd respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order. 4. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the legal provisions for filing C-Forms after assessment and clarified that assessment cannot be postponed solely for producing such forms. The decision highlighted that the assessing authority can extend the time for producing C-Forms if sufficient cause is shown, without affecting the dealer's right to produce them even after the assessment order is made. 5. The judgment concluded by closing any pending miscellaneous petitions in the Writ Petitions and did not impose any costs on the petitioners. The detailed analysis of the legal position and the application of precedents ensured a fair and thorough consideration of the issues raised by the petitioners in challenging the assessment orders under the CST Act, 1956.
|
