2016 (5) TMI 122 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non-submission / Delayed submission of C Forms - Attachment of bank account - towards the arrears of tax - attachment has been made without there being an assessment order passed for the assessment years CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014 - belated submission of C forms and F forms - Held that - upon perusal of the Rules related to furnishing of Form C and Form F as provided under the Pondicherry VAT Rules it is apparent that the time limit has been fixed. At the same time it cannot be lost sight that the Central Sales Tax Rules does not provide for any time limit. Since the State being the authority to make its own Rules and the question is as to whether the Respondents would be justified in rejecting the claim of the concessional levy/exemption on the ground of non-furnishing of statutory forms within 90 days time fixed under the Act. Furnishing of the statutory forms is not within the control of the Petitioner and is dependent on the other State dealers cooperation. If on sufficient cause the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of law then the claim cannot be rejected unjustifiably merely on the ground of belated submissions of statutory forms. By following the decision of Full Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Arulmurugan and Company 1982 (11) TMI 143 - MADRAS HIGH COURT confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as the Petitioner also made rectification applications satisfied with the claim of the Petitioner the Petitioner can be given an opportunity to produce all the statutory forms for making appropriate assessment orders. Therefore the impugned orders are quashed and the 1st Respondent is directed to consider the rectification applications of the Petitioner filed under Section 73 of the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act 2007 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 and rectify the errors if any on the face of the record and consider the statutory forms C and F filed by the petitioner online or manually and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of attachment of bank account for non-payment of tax under Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014; Request for rectification of assessment orders; Legality of bank attachment without assessment order for CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner, a vegetable oil manufacturer and registered dealer, contested the attachment of their bank account by the 1st Respondent for tax arrears under the PVAT Act and CST Act for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The Petitioner argued that the attachment was made without proper assessment orders and sought rectification of assessment orders for CST 2011-2012 and TIN 2011-2012. The 1st Respondent had issued notices proposing tax levies due to non-submission of required forms, leading to the assessment orders in question.

2. The 1st Respondent justified the attachment based on the Petitioner's failure to submit statutory forms within stipulated deadlines for concessional tax rates. The Respondent argued that final assessment orders cannot be revised repeatedly and defended the bank attachment as lawful. The Respondent also claimed that the Petitioner's delay in submitting required forms justified the actions taken, and cited a previous writ petition as res judicata.

3. The court examined the rules regarding submission of Form C and Form F under the Pondicherry VAT Rules and noted the absence of a time limit in the Central Sales Tax Rules. Referring to a previous decision, the court emphasized that belated submission of forms could be allowed with valid reasons. The court directed the 1st Respondent to consider the rectification applications, rectify any errors, and assess the statutory forms submitted by the Petitioner within specified timelines.

4. The judgment quashed the impugned orders, directing the 1st Respondent to review the rectification applications and statutory forms submitted by the Petitioner promptly. The Petitioner was given a chance to provide all necessary forms within a specified period, failing which the 1st Respondent would proceed with the assessment based on available information. The court disposed of the writ petitions without costs, providing clear instructions for further proceedings and emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with statutory requirements.