2024 (8) TMI 1325 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refusal of the 1st respondent in accepting the C Forms and F Forms produced by the petitioner - refusal on the ground that the assessment had been completed - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of RAJESWARI STONE POLISHERS VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1982 (11) TMI 158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . The Hon ble Division Bench after considering the proviso had held that the dealer can file the said C Forms at any time after making of the assessment as long as he is able to satisfy the authority about the sufficient cause why the C Forms could not be filed within time. This judgment was followed by another Hon ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of GODREJ AGROVET LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NOVARTIS HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY NOVARTIS NUTRITION INDIA PVT. LTD.) VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BENZ CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA 2005 (10) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . The Hon ble Division Bench in the subsequent judgment had also held that the assessing authority need not wait for the C Forms to be received before passing an assessment order if there is a danger of limitation expiring for passing of such an assessment order. However the assessing authority would have to consider any C Forms filed subsequent to the assessment order provided the dealer is able to make out sufficient cause while such C Forms could not be filed within the time stipulated under Rule 12 (7) of the CST (R T) rules. The Hon ble Division Bench went on to hold that passing of an assessment order would not preclude the assessing authority from taking these into account and modifying the assessment order. A perusal of the assessment order would show that the objections raised by the petitioner in relation to the arithmetical or clerical mistakes in the order should also be considered as a prima facie reading of the order shows that there are various discrepancies in the figures and such discrepancies can be construed to be arithmetical or clerical mistakes. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the C Forms and F Forms produced by the petitioner subject to the 1st respondent being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner explaining the delay in filing these Forms.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refusal to grant concessional rate of tax under the C.S.T. Act due to non-production of 'C' Forms.
2. Alleged arithmetical or clerical mistakes in the assessment order.

Detailed analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the A.P. VAT Act and C.S.T. Act, filed monthly returns for the financial year 2016-2017. The assessing authority accepted the concessional rate of 2% against 'C' Forms produced but refused the same for a specific turnover of Rs. 22,51,58,089/- due to non-production of 'C' Forms. The petitioner contended that they were not given adequate opportunity to produce the forms and approached the authority post-assessment, but the request was rejected. The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to produce 'C' Forms even after assessment completion, citing a previous judgment. Additionally, the petitioner claimed the assessing authority made mistakes in calculating turnovers.

Issue 2:
The petitioner highlighted arithmetical or clerical errors in the assessment order, pointing out discrepancies in the total turnover, exempted turnover, and net taxable turnover. Despite the petitioner's submission of these errors and a request for correction, the assessing authority refused to amend the mistakes, insisting that corrections should be made through an appeal process.

The Court referred to Rule 12(7) of the CST (R&T) Rules, which allows for furnishing 'C' Forms within three months from the sale date, with a provision for extension on showing sufficient cause. Previous judgments established that 'C' Forms could be filed post-assessment if valid reasons for delay were provided. The Court directed the assessing authority to consider the petitioner's request to accept 'C' Forms and correct any arithmetical or clerical errors in the assessment order after evaluating the petitioner's objections. The Court ordered no coercive recovery of tax until the matters were resolved and closed the case without costs.