9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication and the recovery of tax thereon are concerned, the same stand on entirely different footings and they cannot be used for the purpose of denying of issuance of Form-C and Form-F, as efficacious mode of recovery of tax is available to the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Bihar Value Added Act and Rules. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Writ jurisdiction Case No. 14333 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - Ramesh Kumar Datta And Anjana Mishra, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr D V Pathy, Mrs Manju Jha Mr Abhi Sarkar For the Respondent : Mr Vikas Kumar, AC to PAAG ORDER (Per: Honourable Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta ) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 20.12.2013 and 12.4.2014 for the period from 1.7.2013 to 31.12.2013, for which the application for issuance of Form-C filed electronically by the petitioner has been rejected and for the consequential direction to respondent No.2 to issue Form-C as also Form-F. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Bihar Value Added Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the tax in accordance with the returns filed and if at all there has been any mistake in the filing of the returns, the same could only have been the subject matter of a proper assessment by the respondents which would again be subject to the right of the petitioner to show before the assessing authority that no further tax is leviable in view of the actual nature of the transaction irrespective of any error in the returns filed. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of Mysore High Court at Bangalore in the case of Narsepalli Oil Mills vs. State of Mysore: (1973) 32 S.T.C. 559, in which it has been held as follows:- The petitioner cannot ascribe any error in the order of the Commercial Tax Officer since his own return was accepted by the assessing authority and there was no dispute that the sales were not exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. If the assessee makes a mistake in submitting a return and submits to be assessed to tax before the assessing authority, he is not estopped or precluded by any law from preferring an appeal and showing to the appellate authority that the sales are, in fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was only required to pay the tax as per the return submitted by him which was the law prior to the amendment of Rule 9 on 4.7.2012 and even after the said amendment as per the notifications dated 6.9.2012 and 3.3.2013, the same position shall prevail and the stand of the respondents does not appear to be fair and reasonable in the matter, as a dealer can only be expected to pay the tax in terms of the return filed and if such a return is not found to be correct then it is for the respondent authorities after making a scrutiny under Section 25 of the VAT Act to intimate the dealer about any higher amount of tax payable and which the dealer would be obliged to pay or submit the explanation in that regard but no such action has been taken by the respondents in the present matter. It is further submitted that the assessment having been made for the huge amount, cannot disentitle the petitioner to obtain Form-F, as the mode of recovery of tax have been provided in the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005 itself and the issuance of Form-F could not be made an additional mode of recovery, as there is no such provision either in the Act or Rule in that regard. In support of the same, lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overy of amounts levied as fine. These provisions are no doubt efficacious and wherever a default is committed by an assessee, the authorities concerned can invoke the same for quick and summary recovery of the amount from him. That being so, it is not permissible for the prescribed authority to withhold the C forms only on account of the default committed by the assessee in the payment of the tax determined against it. Any such stance taken by the prescribed authority would amount to prescribing an additional mode for recovery of the tax amount not otherwise recognized by section 8 (4) of the Entry Tax Act. If the Legislature really intended to provide withholding of C forms to a dealer as one of the modes for coercing him to make the payment of tax amount held recoverable, nothing prevented it from prescribing that also as one of the permissible modes for recovery. Since however section 8 (4) of the Entry Tax Act does not sanction the method adopted by the prescribed authority as one of the modes of recovery for the amount of tax determined under the Act, it is impermissible for it to take resort to the same for compelling payment. In the circumstances, therefore, I see no ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
