2018 (9) TMI 890 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Failure to furnish revised returns within specified time - Section 28 of DVAT Act - inability in Obtaining of F-Forms - Section 33 read with Section 86(9)(c) of the DVAT Act - Genuine transactions - inter-state inward branch transfers - Held that - Section 86(9)(c) facially suggests that if some particulars which should have been disclosed in the return are not disclosed, the tax payer is liable by way of penalty 200 per day from the date falling the due date until the failure is rectified - Undoubtedly, while F-Forms relate to the stock available with the dealer, which the petitioner does not dispute was in its knowledge, nevertheless in argument, it is not disputed that the transactions claimed for which examination is sought are not genuine. No doubt, the petitioner might have been aware but its case is that the incorrect particulars were reflected in the final return files. The respondent is directed to issue the concerned F-Forms pertaining to the transactions undertaken by the petitioner in the concerned quarter of Financial Year 2012-13 within four weeks from today - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of letter/order by Assistant Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes
2. Permission for revision of returns for the tax period 2012-13

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash a letter/order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes and requested permission for revising returns for the tax period 2012-13. The petitioner had made genuine inter-state inward branch transfers but failed to include them in the returns due to system errors. The petitioner approached the authorities to permit revision based on discretionary powers under Section 33 read with Section 86(9)(c) of the DVAT Act. The request was rejected due to the elapsed time period for filing revised returns under Section 28 of the DVAT Act.

2. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment regarding delay in claiming credit and argued that the revision sought did not prejudice revenue. The government resisted, citing statutory requirements and conditions for issuance of F-Forms. The government highlighted the need for accurate details and fulfillment of statutory conditions for granting F-Forms, emphasizing that the petitioner did not fulfill these requirements.

3. The court examined Sections 28 and 86 of the DVAT Act, emphasizing the penalty provisions for failure to furnish revised returns. The court distinguished the present case from previous judgments regarding C-Forms, stating that the issue of F-Forms was within the dealer's knowledge. The court found the petitioner entitled to relief similar to previous judgments, directing the issuance of F-Forms for the transactions in question within a specified timeframe.

4. The court ordered the respondent to issue the F-Forms for the petitioner's transactions in the specified quarter of the financial year 2012-13 within four weeks, subject to the possibility of requiring an indemnity bond. The decision was made in light of the petitioner's genuine transactions and the need for relief due to system errors in filing returns. The court's directions were subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related case and other pending appeals.