2015 (12) TMI 53 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Provisional assessment - Non submission of Form-C and Form F issued from the respective authorities of other States where the goods were transferred - Held that - Some of the Forms were filed along with the reply, which were required to be considered by the assessing authority, which in the instant case has not been done and the assessing authority has rejected the same on a flimsy ground that the Forms were filed after the period of three months. Normally, assessment orders are passed after the end of financial year and Forms filed on or before the conclusion of the assessment order would be considered by the assessing authority. Consequently, on this analogy the assessing officer committed an error in holding that he would not consider the Form, which has been filed after the stipulated period of three months. Looking from the another angle, Section 6 A (1) and the proviso to Rule 12 (7) of the Rules indicates that the period of three months can be extended and therefore it is not a mandatory provision making it obligatory upon the assessee to file the requisite forms within the stipulated period of three months. Forms can be filed even after the period of three months. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the provisional assessment order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the provisional assessment orders issued to the petitioner?
2. Whether the rejection of Form C and the application for extension of time by the assessing officer was valid under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and related rules?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The High Court was faced with the question of whether to entertain the writ petition challenging the provisional assessment orders issued to the petitioner. The State contended that the petitioner should have availed the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 55 of U.P. VAT Act instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the State argued that the special remedy provided by the statute should be exhausted before resorting to a writ petition. However, the High Court held that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is discretionary, not compulsory. In this case, where no factual dispute was involved and the matter could be resolved without delay, the High Court decided to exercise its discretion and entertain the writ petition to provide a swift resolution in financial matters, benefiting both the assessee and the State.

Issue 2:
The High Court examined the rejection of Form C and the application for extension of time by the assessing officer under the Central Sales Tax Act and related rules. The assessing officer had rejected the Form C and the extension application on the grounds that they were filed after the stipulated period of three months. However, the High Court analyzed Section 6 A of the Act and Rule 12 (7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. It was observed that the provision to file the Forms within three months is not mandatory, and time can be extended for sufficient cause. The High Court emphasized that the application for extension of time can be filed even after the expiry of three months, and the Forms can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. The Court found that the assessing officer erred in not considering the Forms filed after the stipulated period, as the law allows for such flexibility. Therefore, the High Court quashed the provisional assessment order, directing the assessing officer to pass a fresh order after considering all the necessary Forms, including those filed after the initial deadline.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, highlighting the importance of a pragmatic approach in financial matters and ensuring that procedural requirements are interpreted in a manner that facilitates a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.