2018 (3) TMI 681 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Inter-state sale - Form C - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in confirming higher rate of tax on interstate sale covered by C Forms, uploaded in the website of the department and produced before the authorities below contrary to the provisions of CST Act? Held that - Though returns were submitted for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, the department has taken eight years to finalise the assessment for year 2007-08. No reasons have been assigned for the delay in passing assessment orders, within the financial year - To ascertain the cause shown in the appeals for not producing the C form declarations for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, we directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the appeal memorandums filed before the appellate authority. In the case of State of H.P., and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., and another 2005 (7) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Hon ble Supreme Court while dealing with belated filing of statutory forms, held that if the appellate authority is satisfied that assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause which dis-enabled him to file the forms in time, it can be accepted. It can also be accepted as additional evidence in support of the claim for deduction. In the instant case, respondent No.1-company made a specific request before the revisional authority which was turned down. Therefore, the question of any non-compliance with the relevant statutes does not arise. As in the case of assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee - tax revision allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Higher rate of tax on interstate sales covered by C Forms.
2. Acceptance of belated submission of C Forms.
3. Principles laid down in the case of Arulmurugan and Company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Higher Rate of Tax on Interstate Sales Covered by C Forms:
The petitioner, a dealer of bearings, challenged the assessment orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Puducherry, for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Authority erroneously confirmed a higher rate of tax at 4% instead of the concessional rate of 3% on interstate sales covered by valid C Forms. The petitioner contended that the C Forms were uploaded on the department's website and produced before the authorities, but the Assessing Officer did not accept them, resulting in a higher tax liability.

2. Acceptance of Belated Submission of C Forms:
The petitioner argued that due to reasons beyond their control, they could not produce the balance C Forms in time. They emphasized that the appellate authority should have accepted the C Forms uploaded and produced at the time of the hearing. The petitioner cited several judgments, including the principles laid down in the case of Arulmurugan and Company, which state that the appellate proceedings are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, and therefore, the appellate authority can accept the C Forms even if submitted belatedly.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) dismissed the appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, stating that the appellant had ample time (five to seven years) to submit the C Forms but failed to do so. However, for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, the appellate authority accepted the C Forms submitted at the appellate stage and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reassessment.

3. Principles Laid Down in the Case of Arulmurugan and Company:
The petitioner relied on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Arulmurugan and Company, which held that the appellate authority has the power to accept C Forms at the appellate stage if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have considered the uploaded C Forms and granted the concessional rate of tax.

The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, stating that the petitioner failed to provide valid reasons for the non-submission of C Forms within the stipulated time. The Tribunal held that the petitioner had ample opportunities to submit the forms but failed to do so.

High Court's Judgment:
The High Court observed that the department took eight years to finalize the assessment for the year 2007-08 and found fault with the dealer for not producing the C Forms on time. The Court noted that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay by producing emails sent to vendors requesting the C Forms.

The Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) Rules, 1967, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which allow the submission of C Forms within a prescribed time or within such further time as permitted by the authority.

The Court also cited the Full Bench judgment in the case of Arulmurugan and Company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., which held that the appellate authority can accept belated C Forms if sufficient cause is shown.

The High Court concluded that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay and set aside the orders of the Tribunal. The Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to reassess the tax liability in accordance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, considering the C Forms submitted by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the Tax Case Revisions, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The Court held that sufficient cause was shown for the delay in submitting the C Forms and directed the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.