2025 (2) TMI 313 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Refusal of the assessing authorities to receive H Forms that were sought to be produce after the assessment proceedings had been completed - time limit for receipt of H Forms - HELD THAT - Rule 12 (7) states that C forms or F forms would have to be filed before the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration or the certificate relates. However the proviso to Rule 12 (7) states that the prescribed authority could permit processing or filing of such declaration or certificate beyond the time set out in Rule 12 (7) if sufficient cause is made out as to why the forms could not be filed within time. Under Rule 12 (10) the declaration in Form H can be furnished to the prescribed authority only up to the time of assessment by the first assessing authority. There is no proviso to this provision akin to Rule 12 (7) of the Rules. This would mean that the time frame set out under Rule 12 (10) is absolute and there is no leeway for grant of any further time by the authority - a closer look at Rule 12 (10) (b) shows that the said view may not be correct. Rule 12 (10) (b) states that if any rules are made by the respective State Governments relating to the filing of Form H then the rules as they applied to the declaration in Form C prescribed under the CST (R T) Rules would mutatis mutandia apply to filing of a certificate in Form H . Thus filing of Form H would not be mutatis mutandia with the filing of Form C and F . Conclusion - In the absence of specific state rules H Forms cannot be accepted post-assessment. It would only be appropriate that the matter is placed before the Hon ble The Chief Justice for reference to a Full Bench to resolve this issue.

The judgment addresses the issue of whether 'H' Forms can be submitted after the completion of assessment proceedings, paralleling the treatment of 'C' and 'F' Forms under the Central Sales Tax (R&T) Rules.

Issues Presented and Considered

The core issue considered is whether 'H' Forms can be filed after the assessment period has ended, similar to 'C' and 'F' Forms, based on the interpretation of relevant rules and prior judgments.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework involves Rule 12 (7) and Rule 12 (10) of the Central Sales Tax (R&T) Rules. Rule 12 (7) allows for the submission of 'C' and 'F' Forms within three months after the period they relate to, with a proviso permitting extensions for sufficient cause. Rule 12 (10) pertains to 'H' Forms, indicating they can be submitted only up to the time of the first assessment, with no proviso for extensions.

Precedents include judgments from the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and various Division Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which have previously allowed 'H' Forms to be treated similarly to 'C' and 'F' Forms.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court examines the applicability of Rule 12 (10) (b), which suggests that the rules for 'C' Forms apply mutatis mutandis to 'H' Forms if state-specific rules exist. The Court notes that Andhra Pradesh has not framed such rules for 'H' Forms, thus questioning the applicability of the mutatis mutandis principle.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Court reviews previous judgments where 'H' Forms were accepted post-assessment, based on the interpretation that Rule 12 (10) (b) allows such treatment. However, the absence of explicit state rules for 'H' Forms in Andhra Pradesh challenges this interpretation.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applies Rule 12 (10) strictly, noting the lack of a proviso for extensions, unlike Rule 12 (7). This strict application suggests 'H' Forms cannot be accepted post-assessment without specific state rules permitting such action.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioners argue for the acceptance of 'H' Forms post-assessment, citing previous judgments and the mutatis mutandis application of rules. The Court counters this by emphasizing the absence of state rules for 'H' Forms, which undermines the mutatis mutandis argument.

Conclusions

The Court concludes that, without specific state rules for 'H' Forms, they cannot be treated the same as 'C' and 'F' Forms regarding post-assessment submission. The matter is referred to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Full Bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations.

Significant Holdings

Core Principles Established

The judgment underscores the importance of explicit state rules for the application of mutatis mutandis principles under Rule 12 (10) (b). It highlights the necessity of a clear legal framework for the post-assessment submission of 'H' Forms.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Court determines that, in the absence of specific state rules, 'H' Forms cannot be accepted post-assessment. The issue is significant enough to warrant consideration by a Full Bench to achieve a definitive legal position.

← Previous