9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 53 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of Form E - 1 and C, filed along with application for filing additional evidence - appeal dismissed without considering that the application for additional evidence was already on record and a report from assessing authority was sought by the Tribunal - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is admitted that inter-State transaction has been made. In the event the forms submitted by the applicant are not accepted, the applicant will be compelled to pay higher rate of tax - In the peculiar facts circumstances of the case, when the transaction has already been made and covered by the requisite forms, the applicant, if due to unavoidable circumstances, could not obtain the forms and had produced the same upto the state of Tribunal, even in the subsequent stage, providing the claim has already been made for the same, the form should be accepted. This view has been taken by this Court in the case of M/s Dhan Prakash Cane Crushers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2002 (4) TMI 898 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where, this Court accepted the form, which was furnished for the first time in the revisional jurisdiction and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider the same. The impugned judgements orders passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in these revisions cannot be sustained and the same are modified to the extent that the Tribunal is directed to accept the forms submitted by the applicant and thereafter, decide the issue in accordance with law - the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal by restoring the case to its original number before the Tribunal - Revision allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves Sales/Trade Tax Revisions related to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 under the UP VAT Act. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 139 of 2022: The revision was filed against the judgment & order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal regarding the rejection of Form E-1 and C as additional evidence for the assessment year 2009-10. The questions of law revolved around the legality of rejecting the forms and dismissing the appeal without considering the application for additional evidence. The applicant, a Private Limited Company registered under the UP VAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, made inter-State stock transfers for which Forms F, E-1, and C were issued. The forms were not produced at the time of assessment order but were submitted at the appellate stage. The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the forms and not considering the legal position that Forms E-1 & C can be filed at the appellate forum. The applicant relied on a previous judgment to support their case. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel supported the impugned order, stating that the applicant failed to submit the required forms as prescribed by law. The proceedings initiated against the applicant were deemed appropriate, and the application for additional evidence was rightly disbelieved. The Court acknowledged the inter-State transaction and the potential higher tax liability if the forms were not accepted. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that unnecessary taxation should be avoided, and taxation should only be in accordance with the law. Considering the circumstances and legal precedents, the Court directed the Tribunal to accept the forms submitted by the applicant and decide the issue accordingly. In conclusion, all the revisions were allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for further proceedings in accordance with the law. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 140 and 141: Since the issues in all the revisions were similar, they were decided collectively based on the outcome of Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 139 of 2022. The Tribunal was directed to accept the forms submitted by the applicant and proceed with the cases in line with the legal principles discussed in the judgment.
|
