2021 (1) TMI 659 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Form C filed belatedly - case of Revenue is that having slept over the matter for three years for submission of C forms, it is absolutely not open for the petitioner herein to insist on consideration of the representation, said to have been made on 23.07.2016 - HELD THAT - The declaration in form C is required to be furnished to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration or the certificate relates. In the instant case, the assessment pertains to the period 2012-2013. Three months period, according to the said provision of law, came to an end by the end of June, 2013. As per the proviso to Rule 12 (7) of the Rules, the prescribed authority is empowered to receive form C if the authority is satisfied that the assessee concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the same within time. Therefore, it is very much lucid that it is mandatory on the part of the assessee to show sufficient cause for submission of C forms with delay and the said consideration, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not automatic, however, subject to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. In fact, the said provision of law, obviously, imposes an obligation on the authority to record the satisfaction with regard to the cause shown by the assessee which prevented the assessee from filing the required form within time. Therefore, it is for the authority to consider the entire material available on record and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the assessee assigned proper and sufficient cause for not filing C forms within the prescribed period. The obligation is cast upon the assessee to demonstrate the existence of sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the C forms within time. In the instant case, on the application, dated 23.07.2016, there is no response given by the first respondent. Therefore, having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the representations, dated 23.07.2016 and 20.08.2020, said to have been submitted by the petitioner herein, under Rule 12 (7) of the Rules, and to take appropriate action/pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Non-consideration of representations for revised assessment.
2. Validity of the limitation period for submission of 'C' forms under Rule 12 (7).
3. Obligation of the assessee to show sufficient cause for delayed submission of 'C' forms.
4. Authority's duty to record satisfaction regarding the cause for delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Non-consideration of representations for revised assessment

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the Commercial Tax Officer to dispose of representations dated 23.07.2016 and 20.08.2020 for a revised assessment order for the year 2012-2013 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed that they did not receive the show cause notice or the assessment order and only became aware of the assessment when a demand was made on 05.08.2020.

2. Validity of the limitation period for submission of 'C' forms under Rule 12 (7)

The petitioner argued that there is no limitation prescribed under Rule 12 (7) for the submission of 'C' forms, thus obligating the first respondent to consider the request positively. The Government Pleader countered that the petitioner, having delayed for three years, cannot insist on consideration of the representation. The assessment order indicated receipt of the show cause notice and non-submission of objections by the petitioner. The Government Pleader further argued that the three-month period stipulated in Rule 12 (7) is mandatory, and any extension is subject to the authority's discretion.

3. Obligation of the assessee to show sufficient cause for delayed submission of 'C' forms

The court highlighted that the declaration in form 'C' must be furnished within three months after the end of the relevant period. The proviso to Rule 12 (7) allows for delayed submission if the prescribed authority is satisfied that sufficient cause prevented timely submission. The court emphasized that this consideration is not automatic and requires the assessee to show sufficient cause, which the authority must record.

4. Authority's duty to record satisfaction regarding the cause for delay

The court referred to the judgment in Godrej Agrovet Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, which clarified that there is no limitation for receiving 'C' forms if sufficient cause is shown. The court directed the first respondent to consider the representations under Rule 12 (7), taking into account whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay. The court mandated the authority to record its satisfaction regarding the cause shown by the assessee.

Conclusion

The court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the first respondent to consider the representations dated 23.07.2016 and 20.08.2020 under Rule 12 (7) and take appropriate action within one month, after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the assessee. The Writ Petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and any miscellaneous petitions were also closed.