2016 (4) TMI 48 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Suspension of electronic generation of C-forms - Rule 110B(1) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Held that - the authorities who have found the alleged irregularities pertaining to the petitioning dealer had recommended the suspension of the electronic generation of the C-forms by the petitioner and the State says that the petitioner has been dodging notices from the officers of the Bureau of Investigation, no immediate order is issued for allowing the petitioner the facility of generating C-forms online without the petitioner or a duly authorised representative calling on the Special Officer of the Bureau of Investigation at the beginning of working hours on March 17, 2016 and, failing the Special Officer s presence on March 17, 2016, at the opening of office hours on March 18, 2016. The Special Officer will afford the petitioner or a duly authorised agent of the petitioner a hearing as to the perceived irregularities recorded at page 37 of the petition. It will be open to the respondent authorities to thereafter indicate an appropriate decision as to whether the petitioning dealer would be entitled to generate C-forms online till an express order prohibiting the petitioner is passed by the appropriate authority. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of an order de-selecting the petitioner from online waybill generation services and stopping electronic C-form generation.

Analysis:
The petitioner's grievance was that despite a limited order de-selecting them from online waybill generation services, the electronic generation of C-forms was also stopped, which was not provided for in the order. The State argued that the order approved by the Special Commissioner was based on a proposal from the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Bureau of Investigation, and approved by the Special Officer of the Bureau. The Special Officer, holding the rank of an Additional Commissioner, approved the proposal, which was then forwarded to the Special Commissioner. However, discrepancies arose in the notings in the file, indicating that the order pertained to the proposal of the Senior Joint Commissioner rather than the Deputy Commissioner. The Court concluded that the order should be confined to de-selecting the petitioner from online waybill generation services, not stopping C-form generation.

The Court noted that although irregularities were found, and the petitioner was accused of dodging notices, no immediate order was issued to allow online C-form generation. The Court directed the petitioner to meet with the Special Officer of the Bureau of Investigation to discuss the perceived irregularities. If a decision regarding online C-form generation was not communicated by a specified date, the petitioner would be allowed to generate C-forms online until an explicit order was issued prohibiting them. The case was disposed of without costs, and urgent certified copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon request.