2017 (6) TMI 1006 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Vires of Section 13(4)(e) - Form-F - whether the Rules framed u/s 13(4)(e) are directory or mandatory? - Held that - There is no dispute that the State Government is empowered to frame the Rules thereunder. The Note also is in reiteration and only clarifies that the Form is to be furnished to the Assessing Authority in accordance with the Rules framed u/s 13(4)(e) of the Act. So the said Form will be required to be produced as may be required under the Rules framed by the State Government u/s 13(4)(e) of the Act - It is for the Authority to whom the appeal would be filed to consider whether the Rules framed u/s 13(4)(e) are directory or mandatory - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to authority of Central Government to frame rules under Sections 13(3) and 13(4) of Central Sales Tax Act; Legality of Note on Form F prescribed by Central Government.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought various writs under Article 226 challenging the authority of the Central Government to frame rules under Sections 13(3) and 13(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, specifically focusing on the Note on Form F. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, highlighting that certain prayers could be addressed through an appeal process rather than a writ petition.

2. The main contention of the petitioner was that the Central Government lacked the authority to frame rules related to Sections 13(3) and 13(4) of the Act, which should be under the jurisdiction of State Governments. The petitioner argued that the Note on Form F, stating "To be furnished to the Assessing Authority in accordance with the Rules framed under Section 13(4)(e)," was illegal and beyond the Central Government's authority. The petitioner claimed that submission of Form F should not be mandatory based on State Government rules under Section 13(4)(e).

3. Upon examination, the Court clarified that the Note on Form F merely indicated that the form should be submitted in accordance with rules framed under Section 13(4)(e) of the Act, which are indeed framed by State Governments. The Court emphasized that the State Government has the power to establish rules under Section 13(4)(e), and the Note on Form F reiterated this requirement. The Court concluded that the decision on whether submission of Form F is mandatory or directory lies with the relevant Authority based on the rules framed by the State Government.

4. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge the assessment order through an appeal as provided by the statute. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks to file an appeal, ensuring it would be considered within the limitation period. The judgment maintained that all contentions of the parties remained open for further proceedings.