2019 (4) TMI 1326 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of claim of stock transfer - Submission of declarations or certificates to the Sales Tax Officer - Rule 8A of sub-Rule (4) of the C.S.T (U.P.) Rules, 1957 - HELD THAT - The provision of Rule 8A(4) provides that in case, if there is any minor omission or mistake found in a declaration of a certificate furnished by the dealer, it shall be returned to the dealer who shall be given an opportunity of having the omission or mistake rectify by the dealer or the department concerned of the Government from whom he had received the declaration. In the present case, admittedly, there was no mistake noticed by any of the authority nor there was any minor omission seen by the authority. In fact, the findings are recorded otherwise by the authorities that in Form F there was no detail with respect of number of vehicle, transport company, bills issued by the revisionist, date etc. - the revisionist cannot claim the advantage of Rule 8A (4) of the Rules. Revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim of stock transfer by the assessing authority.
2. Interpretation of legal provisions related to stock transfer under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Application of Rule 8A(4) of the C.S.T (U.P.) Rules, 1957 in the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to two Sales/Trade Tax Revision cases filed against a common order by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The revisionist, engaged in manufacturing and sale of Electrical Stamping and Sheet Metal Components, had their stock transfer claim rejected based on adverse material found during a survey and the statement of the firm's accountant.
2. The assessing authority, after re-examining the issue, concluded that goods sent to Delhi were manufactured and sold to specified purchasers, citing the Supreme Court judgment in M/s English Electric Company of India Ltd vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Office. The assessing authority found a link between the movement of goods and the buyer's contract, deeming the sales to have occurred in the course of inter-State trade.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the revisionist's claims and departmental representations, found discrepancies in the documentation related to the stock transfer. The Tribunal highlighted that Form 'F' lacked essential details like vehicle number and transport company, not meeting the requirements of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. The revisionist relied on Rule 8A(4) of the C.S.T (U.P.) Rules, 1957, which allows rectification of minor omissions or mistakes in declarations. However, all authorities, including the Tribunal, held that the movement of goods was in line with prior orders, and no minor omissions were identified. As a result, the revisionist's claim under Rule 8A(4) was deemed inapplicable.
5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petitions, concluding that no interference was necessary under the revisional jurisdiction based on the findings of the authorities and the lack of compliance with essential documentation requirements.