2014 (2) TMI 389 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Amendment in the registration certificate - Import of machinery used in construction works - Rejection of application for issuance of Form C - Held that - The amendment in the registration certificate has been carried out. So far as issuance of Form C for blank forms for import of machinery and goods for construction, the issuing officer should have passed the appropriate order in compliance with the order of the Court - The amendment in the registration certificate has been carried out. So far as issuance of Form C for blank forms for import of machinery and goods for construction, the issuing officer should have passed the appropriate order in compliance with the order of the Court - writ petition is accordingly disposed of with directions that the petitioner s application for Form C pending with the issuing officer shall be decided afresh within three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for amendment in registration certificate and issuance of Form 'C' for import of machinery.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Tax seeking direction for the Deputy Commissioner to consider the application for amendment in the registration certificate and issuance of Form 'C' for importing machinery. The initial writ petition was disposed of with directions for timely consideration of the applications. The registration certificate was amended by the Deputy Commissioner but the application for Form 'C' was rejected, citing reasons related to the absence of the Issuing Officer who refused to issue the form. The petitioner contended that the rejection was based on extraneous reasons, emphasizing that the Issuing Officer did not pass any formal order rejecting the application.

The State's counsel argued that while the amendment in the registration certificate was allowed, the decision to issue Form 'C' was discretionary as per Rule 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax (UP) Rules, 1957. Referring to a previous case, the counsel highlighted that compelling the Issuing Officer to issue forms not genuinely required by the dealer was not permissible. The Court acknowledged the discretionary power of the Issuing Officer but emphasized that if an application is rejected, valid and justifiable reasons must be provided.

The Court, after reviewing the Deputy Commissioner's reasons for rejection, found them unsatisfactory as they merely referenced the Issuing Officer's instructions without proper justification. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the pending application for Form 'C' to be re-evaluated by the Issuing Officer within three days from the order's certification. The Court mandated that if the application is rejected again, the Issuing Officer must provide sufficient and justifiable reasons for the decision.