9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on such transaction/s for want of form F of the Central sales tax are set aside. The assessee will appear before the reassessing authority and submit a certified copy of this judgment in six weeks, to complete the reassessment proceedings in respect of such transactions only, on its own merits after examining the transactions between the parties, keeping in mind the findings recorded earlier on such transactions, and also that the assessee is not in a position to obtain form F, for no fault of his. - 1190 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2009 - SUNIL AMBWANI AND VIRENDRA SINGH , JJ. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the assessment orders ; reassessment orders and notices under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, for relevant assessment years, by the Trade Tax Department, on the transactions of job-work and goods-returned treated as sales under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and in which the assessing authority or the reassessing authority has assessed or has proposed to assess the liability of tax following the judgment in Ambica Steels Limited v. State of U.P. [2008] 12 VST 216 (All) on the ground that since form F of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnish the evidence of such dispatch of goods by reason of Act 20 of 2002. In the event, if it fails to furnish such declaration, by reason of legal fiction, such movement of goods would be deemed for all purposes of the said Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale. Such declaration indisputably is to be filed in form F. The said form is to be filled in triplicate. The prescribed authority of the transferee-State supplies the said form. The original of the said form is to be filed with the transferor-State and the duplicate thereof is to be filed before the authorities of the transferee-State whereas the counterfoil is to be preserved by the person where the agent or principal of the place of business of the company is situated. In paragraph 37 of the report, it has further held as under: 37. By reason of sub-section (2) of section 6A, a legal fiction has been created for the purpose of the said Act to the effect that transaction has occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. The apex court has, therefore, clearly laid down that, under section 6A of the Central Act, the burden would be on the dealer to show that movement of the goods had been occasioned no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. The judgment in Ambica Steels Limited [2008] 12 VST 216 (All) was challenged in Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4970 of 2008 [Ambica Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2009] 24 VST 356]. The Supreme Court on March 31, 2009 passed an order as follows (pages 357 and 358 in 24 VST): Shri Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, on instructions, states that the appellant-assessee will submit itself to the reassessment proceedings initiated vide showcause notice (see annexure P2). He further states that the assessee will file form 'F' with the authority concerned within ten weeks from today. On expiry of the period of ten weeks the assessing officer will take up reassessment proceedings which will be completed within a period of three months, thereafter. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on the scope and applicability of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there exists difference of opinion between the various sales tax collectors in the country and therefore since the appellant is now ready to file form 'F', we are directing the assessing officer not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions involving job-work and goods-returned. We are therefore confining our judgment only to the cases of job-work and goods-returned. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the judgment in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473 (SC); [2004] 3 SCC 1 was in respect of stock transfer and that the ratio of the judgment would not be applicable in the cases of job-work and goodsreturned. It is submitted that in Ambica Steels [2008] 12 VST 216 (All) the judgment of Ashok Leyland [2004] 134 STC 473 (SC); [2004] 3 SCC 1 was not correctly applied, and that the deemed sale as envisaged in section 6A of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, in proof of which evidence other than form F (where it is not issued) is admissible. We are relieved of considering the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and referring the matter to a larger bench, as the honourable Supreme Court has considered the submissions in the Civil Appeal No. 4970 of 2008 in Ambica Steels [2009] 24 VST 356 and has held on March 31, 2009, that where the State(s) is/are issuing form F, the assessee will be provided form F for making assessment; where however form F is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
