9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Tribunal, it is revealed that the reason assigned by the dealer in its petition dated August 7, 2001 was not disputed by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal is not justified in insisting on production of further documentary evidence in support of the contention of the petitioner that the declaration forms were received by it after the hearing of the first appeal, for the purpose of accepting those declaration forms. Against revenue. Since the Tribunal has not examined the correctness of the declaration forms produced before it, now it shall examine the same and for this purpose the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. - - - - - Dated:- 4-4-2008 - GANGULY A.K. C.J. AND MAHAPATRA B.N. , JJ. B.N. MAHAPATRA J. This batch of tax revision petitions filed by Larsen Toubro Ltd., Kansbahal, Sundargarh, has been admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in refusing to accept the declarations in form 'F' and form 'C' and whether such refusal on the part of the Tribunal does not run contrary to the law laid down by the honourable Orissa High Court in Oriental Chemica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, etc. The company had claimed transfer of machineries and equipments to its work sites in different States as transfer of those goods in course of execution of works contract. It also claimed that no Central sales tax is leviable on those transactions in view of non-amendment of section 2(g) and section 6 of the CST Act pursuant to 46th Amendment to the Constitution of India. This claim of the company was not accepted by the assessing officer who treated the same as inter-State sale and levied tax at the usual rate of ten per cent on the said turnover. The learned first appellate authority also held those transactions as inter-State sale. However, the assessing officer allowed the petitioner's claim of inter-State sale at concessional rate and transfer of machineries, equipments and spare parts to its branches and sister concerns to the extent of production of declarations in forms C , E-1 and F before him. The first appellate authority also accepted some declaration forms produced before it claiming at concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-State sale and declaration form in F against transfer of goods to its own branches and sister concerns otherwise than by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State sale it changed its stand and wanted to file C declaration forms accepting the view of the department. For this purpose, the dealer requested the first appellate authority to allow it reasonable opportunity to collect declaration forms. The first appellate authority without allowing reasonable opportunity to collect declaration forms disposed of the appeal upholding the levy of tax at 10 per cent. The learned counsel further submitted that the dealer could be able to collect necessary declarations in form C against transfer of machineries and equipments to its work sites only after hearing of first appeal was closed as the forms were produced before the learned Tribunal. He further contended that the dealer could also be able to collect wanting declarations in forms C and F against inter-State sale and branch transfer of machineries and equipment only after the hearing of first appeals was closed, which it produced before the learned Tribunal. Stating the above reason that the declaration forms were received after hearing of first appeal, a petition dated August 7, 2001 was filed by the dealer before the learned Tribunal with a prayer to accept the declarations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods from M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals and others and had a sales turnover of Rs. 18,191.77 through transfer of documents of title to the goods while the same were still in transit. The assessee, however, did not produce the declarations in form C and the certificates in form E-1 before the assessment was completed in spite of the requirement of producing the same before the assessing officer. For the year, it had also shown inter-State sale in respect of Rs. 885.55 and had paid concessional rate of tax at three per cent, though the declaration in form C was not produced to support the claim for concessional rate. The Sales Tax Officer, in the circumstances, raised a demand on the turnover of Rs. 18,191.77 and assessed the turnover of Rs. 885.55 at the usual rate rejecting the claim for being assessed at the concessional rate. For the year 1970-71, the assessee had effected interState sale to the tune of Rs. 10,169.04 and had supported the transactions by declarations in form C . It, however, claimed exemption under section 6(2)(b) of the CST Act in respect of a turnover of Rs. 85,416.52. In spite of opportunity being given by the assessing officer, appropriate declarations in fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority was also of the same view as that of the assessing officer, the appellant changed its stand and requested for reasonable opportunity to produce C declaration forms to avail concessional rate of tax if the transactions would be held to be taxable as inter-State sale. This stand of the petitioner finds place at page 10 of the first appeal order dated January 27, 1994 passed for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1990-91 where learned first appellate authority observed that after summing up of his argument, the authorised representative of the appellant took a fervent plea that in the event the alleged stocks transfer made by the appellant to its worksites were construed as inter-State sale, a reasonable opportunity to file the declaration in form C should be afforded to the appellant in accordance with law since the appellant was under the bonafide belief that the alleged transactions were factually and legally stock transfer transactions and therefore not exigible to any Central sales tax. Similarly, at page 5 of the first appeal order dated September 30, 1993 passed for the year 1989-90, the learned first appellate authority observed that it was further argued, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny to collect C forms from the customer for the purpose of obtaining relief under section 8(1) read with section 8(4) since the question whether the transaction could be treated as inter-State sale was all along in doubt which was resolved only by the honourable Supreme Court. Under the provisions of sales tax law a registered dealer is entitled to effect inter-State sale at a concessional rate of tax on the strength of C declaration forms and also entitled to transfer goods from its manufacturing unit to its other place of business or agent situated outside the State otherwise than by way of sale on the strength of F declaration forms without payment of tax. The dealer cannot be deprived of the above benefit of tax available under the statute merely because the declaration forms are for the first time filed before the second appellate authority, if for some good reasons the same could not be produced before the assessing officer and first appellate authority. In Sahu Trading Co. [1983] 54 STC 122, this court categorically held that for good reasons, if declaration forms could not be produced before the first appellate authority and in suitable cases produced before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
