2020 (3) TMI 824 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Benefit of Form-D - Tribunal rejected the claim of the revisionist on the ground that since the matter relates to assessment year 1998-99 and submitted Form 3D after a period of two years as prescribed under the Act and therefore the benefit of the same cannot be granted to the revisionist - HELD THAT - It is admitted case that the revisionist did not filed form 3-D before the assessing authority and the same were furnished subsequent to the passing of the assessment order. The Tribunal has recorded the fact that Form 3-D was submitted by means of an application under Section 12B of the Act before the Tribunal for acceptance of the said Form and to grant benefit of the same to the revisionist. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that form 3-D was pertaining to assessment year 2002-03 where as the assessment pertains to the year 1998-99 and therefore Forms have been procured by the revisionist after two years of the assessment therefore benefit of the same cannot be granted to the revisionist. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Form-3D submission for assessment year 1998-99
2. Refusal of authorities to grant benefit of Form-3D
3. Legality of Tribunal's order in view of Act & Rules
4. Justification of authorities in not granting benefit of Form-3D

Detailed Analysis:
1. The revisionist, a partnership concern registered under U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the Commercial Tax Tribunal's order rejecting their appeal for assessment year 1998-99. The assessing authority disallowed benefits due to missing Forms, resulting in higher tax rates. After rectification, tax liability was reduced but claims for other transactions were rejected. First appeal partially allowed, but second appeal to Tribunal was dismissed due to late submission of Form 3-D, requested after the order.

2. The Tribunal refused the revisionist's claim for Form 3-D as it was for a different assessment year, procured after the prescribed two-year period. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that benefits cannot be granted beyond the stipulated timeframe. The High Court supported this view, citing previous judgments upholding the time limit for Form 3-D submission.

3. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's judgment, noting compliance with legal precedents and lack of new arguments from the revisionist. The Tribunal's decision was deemed consistent with established legal principles, and no flaws were identified in the judgment or order.

4. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. The questions of law raised were answered unfavorably for the revisionist, affirming the Tribunal's decision and upholding the denial of benefits related to Form 3-D submission beyond the statutory limit.