2022 (7) TMI 919 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reopening of proceedings - Stock transfer - Determination of tax liability of the Petitioners under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 after adjustment of the admitted tax paid at the time of filing of return - HELD THAT - The Court is satisfied that the present attempt by the Petitioners to reopen the proceedings after repeated rounds of failed litigation, should not be permitted as it is an abuse of the process of Court. All the issues raised by the Petitioners have already been conclusively decided against them by the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court and it is therefore not open to this Court to reopen these issues time and again. It was equally not opened to the authorities below to revisit the issues. All that the impugned orders do is to re-compute the tax liability on the basis of the order of the Supreme Court. This Court is not inclined to interfere with either of the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to re-computation order under CST Act, 1956; Dismissal of revision petitions by ACST; Acceptance of Form-F as Form-C; Abuse of process of court by repeated litigation.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges the re-computation order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) by the Sales Tax Officer (STO) and the subsequent dismissal of revision petitions by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST). The ACST declined to interfere with the STO's re-computation order, leading to the petition before the High Court.

2. The background involves a demerger of a factory and transfer of assets, with the petitioners being manufacturers of explosives. The dispute arises from the classification of transactions as inter-State sales or stock transfers, impacting tax liabilities under the CST Act.

3. The petitioners argue that the transactions should be treated as stock transfers based on a Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing the importance of Form-F acceptance. They claim the right to produce 'C' Forms and question the jurisdiction of the ACST in dealing with assessment orders.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes asserts that the Supreme Court has settled the issue, rejecting the petitioners' plea to accept Form-F as Form-C. The counter affidavit highlights the petitioners' repeated litigations over the years, leading to the re-computation order by the Assessing Authority.

5. The Court notes the extensive history of litigation by the petitioners, including multiple petitions and appeals at various levels. The Court deems the current attempt to reopen proceedings as an abuse of the court process, considering the conclusive decisions made by the Supreme Court on the issues raised.

6. Given the settled nature of the issues by the Supreme Court and the abuse of the court process through repeated litigations, the High Court declines to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed, and the interim order is vacated, with adjustments to be made for the amount already paid by the petitioners.

In conclusion, the High Court upholds the re-computation order under the CST Act, emphasizing the finality of Supreme Court decisions and discouraging abuse of the court process through repetitive litigations.