2024 (1) TMI 440 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Filing of form Manually instead of Electronically - Applicability of Sections 31(4) and 74(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Form VAT-240 filed by the petitioner for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 - seeking direction to respondent No.2 not to insist for electronic computer statement as per Circular bearing No. 43/2011-12, dated 31.12.2011 marked at Annexures B and C. Whether the respondents can maintain the stand that Form 240 have been filed in 2015 as alleged by them? - HELD THAT - This petition is filed in the year 2016. Till today, statements of objections have not been filed by the respondents. As already noticed, statement of objections are not filed disputing the authenticity of these documents. Respondents have not produced Form 240 said to have been filed in the year 2015 as alleged by the respondents. Hence, this Court is of the view that Form 240 vide Annexures D and E have been filed manually by the petitioner as on the date mentioned in the said forms. Whether the Form 240 has to be filed electronically? - HELD THAT - Under Section 33 of KVAT Act of 2003, there is a mandate to maintain the records in electronic form. The mandate is in respect of accounts as referred in Section 31 of the KVAT Act of 2003. The accounts referred in Section 31 refers to the accounts maintained by the dealer pertaining to his business transaction. Section 31 does not refer to Form 240. This being the position, Sections 31 and 33 cannot be interpreted to say that Form 240 is to be furnished electronically. It is relevant to note that Annexure A is the notice under Section 31(4) read with Section 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Notice indicates that the petitioner has filed Form 240 manually. By referring to the Circular Nos. 43 and 44/2011-12 dated 31.12.2011, the respondents have demanded penalty in exercise of power under Section 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003 on the premise that VAT form 240 is not filed in the electronic form. In the said notice the respondent admits that the petitioner has filed Form No. 240. Thus the contention that the Form No. 240 is not filed at all is rejected. There is nothing in the Act to hold that Section 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003 mandates the dealer to furnish Form 240 electronically. On the basis of the circular which is alleged to have been issued mandating From 240 to be filed electronically, the respondent cannot contend that form 240 filed manually, which was in time, is not a valid submission of Form 240. As already noticed, the circular does override the requirements of Section 74(4) and the power under Section 59 to issue instructions to the authorities cannot be construed as a power to impose conditions and restrictions on the dealer. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order dated 20.10.2015, Declaration on Sections 31(4) and 74(4) of KVAT Act, 2003, Mandamus sought not to insist for electronic computer statement.

Judgment Summary:

Challenge to Order dated 20.10.2015:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.10.2015, claiming that the VAT returns for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were filed in time manually. The respondents rejected the manual forms, imposed penalties under Sections 31(4) and 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner contended that the circular mandating electronic filing contradicted Section 74(4) requirements. The Court found that the manual forms were filed on time and quashed the impugned order.

Declaration on Sections 31(4) and 74(4) of KVAT Act, 2003:
The petitioner argued that under Section 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003, electronic submission of Form No. 240 was not mandatory. The respondents justified penalties citing Sections 31(4) and 74(4) and Circular Nos. 43 and 44/2011-12. However, the Court held that the circular could not override Section 74(4) requirements, and the power under Section 59 did not authorize imposing conditions on the dealer. The impugned order and consequential order were quashed.

Mandamus not to insist for electronic computer statement:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against insisting on electronic filing based on Circular No. 43/2011-12. The respondents contended that the circular mandated electronic filing. However, the Court found that Section 33 did not require Form 240 to be furnished electronically. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders and noting that remaining prayers did not survive due to the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.