9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 559 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment order - tax on inter-state sales transactions - denial of benefit of concession under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - C Forms were lost - petitioner had filed the xerox/photo copies of C-forms - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - HELD THAT - As far as the production of C Forms is concerned, Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 makes it very clear that it is for the petitioner to approach the selling dealer and obtain appropriate Forms from the Sales Tax Department from the other states. It is not open for the petitioner to shift the burden on the Assessing Officer to verify from the data from the website of the Sales Tax Department from the supplier's end. To that extent, there is no merits in the present writ petition. The petitioner is bound to obtain certificates in a manner prescribed under the aforesaid Rules. As far as rate of tax whether the goods are liable to tax at 12.5% or 4% in terms of the Sl.No.1, Part B of the 1st Schedule of the TNVAT Act, 2006 would require a re-consideration by the respondent as there is no discussion on the same in the impugned order. To that extent, the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted back to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by considering the representation of the petitioner. This writ petition stands partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated 19.04.2021 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 2. Denial of concessional tax rate due to non-production of original C Forms. 3. Incorrect levy of tax rate at 12.5% instead of 4%. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Impugned Order: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the respondent under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner contended that the respondent had earlier passed an Assessment Order on 09.04.2019, confirming tax on inter-state sales transactions by denying the benefit of concession under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner argued that some of the C Forms were lost, and xerox/photo copies were submitted to substantiate the transactions. Therefore, the respondent should have revised the assessment based on the applications filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on 06.11.2019. 2. Denial of Concessional Tax Rate: The petitioner submitted that the transactions pertained to transit and inter-state sale and purchase, which were reflected in the web portal. The respondent could have verified the transactions from the web portal to determine if the tax rate should be 12.5% or the concessional rate under the CST Act, 1956. The petitioner further argued that the respondent wrongly levied tax at 12.5% instead of 4%, as the product fell under tariff heading 2001 of Sl.No.1 of Part B to the 1st Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006. The impugned order was deemed a non-speaking order due to the rejection based solely on the non-production of C Forms. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, relied on the Supreme Court decision in India Agencies (REGD), Bangalore Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (2005) 2 SCC 129. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 12(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which requires strict compliance for claiming the concessional rate of tax under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court noted that Rule 12 clearly mandates the petitioner to obtain appropriate Forms from the Sales Tax Department of other states. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling indicated that the petitioner could not shift the burden on the Assessing Officer to verify data from the Sales Tax Department's website. The petitioner must secure/procure duplicate copies of C Forms in compliance with Rule 12. 3. Incorrect Levy of Tax Rate: Regarding the tax rate, the petitioner argued that the product should be taxed at 4% instead of 12.5%, as per the TNVAT Act, 2006. The court observed that the issue of classification and the applicable tax rate required reconsideration by the respondent, as the impugned order lacked discussion on this matter. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law, considering the petitioner's representation. Conclusion: The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the respondents to pass an order within 60 days from the receipt of the order copy. The respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the respondent upon securing/procuring duplicate copies of C Forms from the supplier as per Rule 12. The writ petition was partly allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
