2021 (12) TMI 355 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of excess tax - Purchase of High Speed Diesel Oil - inter-state sales - refusal to accept the C Forms - concessional rate of tax under Section 8 (1) read with Section 8 (3) and 8 (4) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT - Under Section 6 of CST Act the liability, in the case of an inter-State sale, liability to pay tax is that of the seller (i.e. IOCL herein). This tax is imposed by the Central Government. However, in view of Section 9(2) of the CST Act the authorities of the selling State (i.e. State Government of West Bengal) have been delegated the powers of assessment, re-assessment, collection and refund of tax under the respective State legislations on behalf of the Union of India. Even though the tax is collected by the State Government on behalf of the Union of India, the proceeds so collected are assigned to the State Government and retained by it in view of Section 9(3) of the CST Act. Section 8 of the CST Act provides for the rate of tax. It is the admitted position as appears from record that the purchasing HSD oil dealer /petitioners as well as IOCL/the selling dealer in West Bengal have registered themselves under the Central Sales Tax Act and the declared goods are certified in the certificate of registration of the petitioner as well as purpose for purchase has also been certified, petitioners are entitled to concessional rate of tax under Section 8 (1) of the CST Act, 1956 since the IOCL/selling dealer has obtained from the petitioner/purchasing dealer the declaration in the prescribed form duly filled and signed by them containing the particulars of the goods that were ordered/purchased/supplied under a certain specific order and all the purpose mentioned and the goods are covered by the registration certificate of the purchaser/petitioner under the CST Act - Since the petitioners have submitted the C Forms to the respondents State Government of West Bengal through the selling dealer/IOCL relating to inter-State sale in question during the course of impugned assessment there cannot be a case of non-compliance of submission of C Forms and neither it is a case of defective C Forms in any manner by the State Government of West Bengal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the stand of the State Government of West Bengal to insist upon refund only on the returns being revised now by the IOCL, is a stand which is impossible of compliance under the statute. Furthermore, the buyer/petitioners have absolutely no role to play as this aspect of filing a revised return by IOCL for making claim of refund, is a matter between the State Government of West Bengal and its seller IOCL - Central Sales Tax is a tax leviable at the instance of Government of India, even though assessed and collected by the State Government. The Union of India has also accepted the aforesaid position in law. It is well settled that if a claim is otherwise admissible on the basis of documents on record, the failure to revise a return would be immaterial as it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to impose tax on the basis of law as not the basis of an alleged concession, acquiescence or mistake or failure on the part of the assessee to make a correct claim - even assuming, that IOCL was in default in revising its returns, even in such an eventuality, the Petitioners being buyers of goods, have fulfilled their obligations by producing the C Forms and in such circumstances Petitioners could not be made liable for any alleged default of the seller IOCL being tax collecting agent of the Respondent State Government of West Bengal as the buyers i.e. Petitioners in the present case have no control over the activities of the seller i.e. IOCL in the present case. Impugned order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is set aside to the extent of refusal of acceptance of relevant C Forms submitted before him during the impugned assessment proceeding by the HSD oil purchasing dealers/petitioners through the oil selling dealers/IOCL relating to the relevant disputed period which were issued by the purchasing respective State Government, in favour of the petitioners on inter-State sales in question and it shall accept the aforesaid relevant C Forms and allow concessional rate of tax to the petitioners on the basis of the said relevant C Forms subject to formal verification of the same. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petitions.
2. Mandatory or directory nature of filing "C" Forms with returns.
3. Legality of the impugned assessment order refusing to accept "C" Forms.
4. Entitlement to concessional rate of tax.
5. Justification for refusal of tax refund by the State Government of West Bengal.
6. Impact of compelling extraordinary circumstances on tax refund.
7. Practicality of claiming refund from IOCL instead of the State Government.
8. Legality of withholding tax refund by citing consent and acquiescence.
9. Compliance with instructions from the Government of India.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Locus Standi of the Petitioners
The court determined that the petitioners, as purchasing dealers of HSD oil, are "persons aggrieved" and have the locus standi to file these writ petitions. The court noted that the petitioners were deprived of their legitimate right to purchase HSD oil at a concessional rate and to get a refund of the excess tax collected by the State Government of West Bengal through IOCL.

Issue 2: Filing of "C" Forms
The court held that filing of "C" Forms along with the return by the selling dealer is directory, not mandatory. The court emphasized that there is no statutory bar preventing the filing of "C" Forms belatedly during the assessment proceedings. The refusal to accept "C" Forms submitted during the assessment was deemed arbitrary and unjustified.

Issue 3: Legality of the Impugned Assessment Order
The court found the impugned assessment order to be bad in law to the extent that it denied the concessional rate of tax to the petitioners. The court noted that the assessing officer had recorded the submission of "C" Forms but did not provide a valid reason for their non-acceptance, making the refusal arbitrary and unreasonable.

Issue 4: Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Tax
The court confirmed that the petitioners had fulfilled the conditions under Section 8(1) of the CST Act and were entitled to purchase HSD oil at a concessional rate. The submission of "C" Forms during the assessment proceedings was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.

Issue 5: Justification for Refusal of Tax Refund
The court held that the State Government of West Bengal was unjustified in refusing the refund on the grounds that the petitioners should claim it from IOCL. The court emphasized that the excess tax collected was already deposited with the State Government, and the petitioners had no control over IOCL's actions.

Issue 6: Impact of Compelling Extraordinary Circumstances
The court recognized that the delay in submitting "C" Forms was due to compelling extraordinary circumstances beyond the petitioners' control. The court concluded that the State Government's refusal to refund the excess tax was legally unjustified and ignored the bona fide reasons for the delay.

Issue 7: Practicality of Claiming Refund from IOCL
The court found it impractical and impossible for IOCL to refund the excess tax to the petitioners without the State Government first refunding the tax to IOCL. The court held that the State Government's action of withholding the refund was arbitrary and amounted to unjust enrichment.

Issue 8: Withholding Tax Refund by Citing Consent and Acquiescence
The court ruled that the State Government's action of withholding the tax refund based on consent or acquiescence was not legally justified. The court noted that the State Government had allowed concessional rates before and after the disputed period, making the refusal during the disputed period arbitrary.

Issue 9: Compliance with Government of India Instructions
The court found that the State Government's action was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue. The court held that the State Government's refusal to refund the excess tax was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned assessment order was set aside to the extent of refusal to accept the "C" Forms. The court directed the State Government of West Bengal to process and refund the excess tax collected, along with interest, either directly to the petitioners or to IOCL for onward refund to the petitioners. The court emphasized the need for fairness and justice in tax collection and refund processes.

← Previous Next →