9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory of Delhi ('GNCTD') (Respondent No. 2 herein) rejecting the request made by the Petitioner for issuance of C-Forms in relation to the inter-state purchases made by the Petitioner during the third and fourth quarter of Financial Year ('FY') 2010-11. 3. Earlier by an order dated 28th May 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 5836 of 2015, Respondent No. 2 was asked to dispose of the representation made by the Petitioner on 26th May 2015 in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto the impugned order was issued. Ten reasons have been given in the impugned order for rejecting the Petitioner's request. In short, it is stated that purchases in the sum of Rs. 4,35,62,335 and Rs. 1,61,49,137 in the third and fourth quarters respectively of FY 2010-11 were not shown in the returns or even in the revised returns filed by the Petitioner for those relevant tax periods. Further, the purchases were not entered in the purchase register to be maintained in Form DVAT-30; the purchases were not shown in the documents produced before the Special Auditor when a special audit was conducted for FYs 2010-11 and 2011-12; at the time of passing of the assessment order on 31st January 2015 no declaration was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal" and "Duplicate" shall be made over by him to the selling dealer. PROVIDED that the counterfoils of the Declaration Forms should be maintained by the dealer for a period of five years or such further period as may be prescribed by the Commissioner. (2) For obtaining a blank Declaration Form 'C' referred to in sub-rule (1) from the Commissioner, a registered dealer shall apply for issue of Forms to the Commissioner in Form '2C' whenever such forms are required and shall affix court fee stamp at the rate of fifty paise per Form on the application. PROVIDED that for obtaining blank declaration Form 'C' for the transactions prior to 1st October, 2005, a registered dealer shall submit a requisition account of declaration forms in Form '2A' together with his last return for the year 2005-06 or by such date as may be notified by the Commissioner in this regard.] [(3) If the applicant for Declaration Forms has, at the time of making the applications, failed to comply with an order demanding security from him under sub-section (3A) of section 7 of the Act, the Commissioner shall reject the application.] [(4) If the applicant for Declaration Form 'C' has, at the time of maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '2B' of forms issued to him in respect of the transactions subsequent to 30th September, 2005.]" 8. In terms of Rule 5 (2) a request has to be made in Form-2C by the dealer desirous of obtaining C-Forms to the Commissioner of the Department. Inter alia, in the said Form, the dealer declares that "due return(s) have been filed for all quarters/months till ....... (mention period ending) and the tax due as per return has been paid". As is evident from Rule 5 (2) even blank C-Forms can be obtained in anticipation of inter-state sales. Secondly, there is no time limit prescribed under the CST Delhi Rules for issuance of C-Forms. 9. Under Rule 5(4) there are four contingencies when a request made for issuance of a C-From may be refused by the Commissioner, after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Under Rule 5 (4) (i), C-Forms can be refused where the dealer has defaulted in furnishing a return, including a reconciliation return or returns in accordance with the provisions of law or in the payment of tax due according to such return. Under Rule 5(4)(iv), C-Forms can be refused if some adverse material is found by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate purchases, there was a mistake owing to the wrong understanding by the Petitioner of the purchases that pertained to the FY 2010-11. It is stated that the Petitioner went by the date of delivery of the goods rather than the dates of invoices as the date of sale. In the original return filed, the figures mentioned for the inter-state purchases made during the months of October 2010 to March 2011 were shown as Rs. 168,27,55,275 and after realising the aforementioned mistake it was corrected as Rs. 159,21,63,988 in the revised return filed. But apparently this too was not correct. It is stated that on account of clerical mistake made at the stage of filing the revised return, inter-state purchase transactions of the value of Rs. 5,97,11,472 were not reflected in the revised returns although they did form part of the original returns. The net result is that there were inter-state purchases made to the extent of Rs. 5,97,11,472, in respect of which the Petitioner was entitled to C-Forms, which were however not reflected in its revised returns. 13. Turning to the reasons for rejection of the Petitioner's request as listed out in the impugned order dated 12th June 2015 it is seen th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Petitioner to furnish a return, including a reconciliation return or return in accordance with the provisions of law or in payment of tax due according to such return. 16. A question was repeatedly posed to learned counsel for the Respondents whether there was any adverse impact as far as the Department was concerned if the C-Forms in respect of the aforementioned inter-state purchase transactions as requested by the Petitioner were to be furnished even at this stage. The reply was in the negative. In other words, there would be no loss of any tax revenue to the Department. At the same time, it is not denied that if the Petitioner is unable to obtain and furnish the C-Forms to its selling dealers, then it cannot take advantage of reduced rate of tax and the selling dealer is likely to pass on the burden of the differential tax to the Petitioner. In sum, the denial of C-Forms to the Petitioner would certainly be prejudicial to it. 17. Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, referred to certain decisions in the context of non-issuance of C-Forms to selling dealers where the Court appears to have taken a liberal view. For instance, in State of A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sked for by the Petitioner are not genuine. As far as the furnishing of bank statements is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner has by a letter dated 10th July 2015 furnished the said documents. As regards the apprehension expressed by Mr. Ghose that this would open a pandora's box and make it difficult for proper administration of collection of taxes by the Respondents, it is trite that each such request for issuance of C-Forms would have to be individually examined on a case to case basis. It is incumbent on the authority while examining such request in light of Rule 5(4) of the CST Delhi Rules to satisfy himself whether any of the grounds spelt out therein is actually attracted. In the present case there is a valid explanation offered regarding the mistake made by it in not including the aforementioned inter-state purchases in the revised returns filed. Also, the authorities appear to be satisfied that these are genuine inter-state purchase transactions with no adverse impact on the revenue of the State. Thirdly, the authority is not precluded from issuing the C-Forms subject to any condition, like the furnishing of an indemnity bond by the dealer. Indeed the Petitioner e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
