2016 (12) TMI 372 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Benefit of concessional rate of tax - duplicate part of the C-Forms produced by the petitioner not considered - Held that - The Hon ble Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax 1989 (1) TMI 351 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT considered an identical issue and held that where the dealer filed the duplicate part of Form C instead of the original, there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Central Act and those of Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, so as to entitle the dealer to get the benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the Central Act - the petitioner s case can be considered by taking into account the duplicate part of C-Form instead of the original. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall take note of the duplicate part of the C-Form instead of the original part, examine the correctness of the same and proceed further in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment under Central Sales Tax Act based on non-consideration of duplicate part of C-Forms.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in lithographic plates and densitometers, challenged an order passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, alleging that the respondent failed to consider the duplicate part of the C-Forms, resulting in the denial of the concessional rate of tax benefit. The petitioner claimed to have submitted original C-Forms, which were allegedly lost by the respondent. The respondent denied this claim in their response. The crux of the issue was whether the respondent's assessment disregarded the duplicate part of the C-Forms, which is a crucial component for verifying the genuineness of the claim for concessional rate of tax.

The Court highlighted that the duplicate part of the C-Forms is distinct from a photostat copy and forms an essential part of the C-Form, which includes duplicate, original, and counterfoil sections. If the original part, meant for submission to the Department, is lost, the genuineness of the claim can still be verified from the duplicate part. The Court referenced a judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, emphasizing that filing the duplicate part instead of the original part of Form C constitutes sufficient compliance with the relevant provisions, entitling the dealer to the concessional rate of tax benefit under the Central Act.

Based on the legal principles established in the referenced judgment, the Court concluded that the petitioner's case should be considered by taking into account the duplicate part of the C-Form instead of the original. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to assess the duplicate part of the C-Form, verify its correctness, and proceed further in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the case was closed following the Court's decision.