9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable and sufficient cause which dis-enabled him to file the forms in time, it can be accepted. It can also be accepted as additional evidence in support of the claim for deduction. In the instant case, respondent No.1-company made a specific request before the revisional authority which was turned down. Therefore, the question of any non-compliance with the relevant statutes does not arise. As in the case of assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee - tax revision allowed. - Tax Case (Revision) Nos. 19 to 22 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2018 - S. Manikumar And T. Ravindran, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. T. Pramodkumar Chopda For the Respondent : Mr. J. Kumaran, G. A. ( Pondy ) ORDER ( Order of this Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Tax Case Revision Nos.19 to 22 of 2018, are filed, against the common judgement, dated 29.11.2017, made in Tax Appeal Nos.10 to 13 of 2016, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Puducherry. 2. As instant Tax Case Revisions have been preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate sales against Form-C for the value of ₹ 57,64,430/- and effected stock transfer of goods to other States against Form-F to the tune of ₹ 18,56,684/- and since the dealer had not produced the Forms-C/F, declarations for the concessions in time, the Assessing Authority assessed the tax due on the total interstate sales turnover reported at ₹ 3,40,469/-, out of which, the petitioner had paid a tax of ₹ 1,60,334/- and has to pay a balance tax of ₹ 1,80,135/- as per the details of the taxable turnover determined as below: Inter-State sale of bearing taxable @ 4% : ₹ 8,90,610/- Inter-State sale of bearings supported by Form-C taxable @ 2% : ₹ 51,50,305/- Inter-State sale of bearings not supported by Form-C taxable @ 4% : ₹ 6,14,125/- Stock Transfer of bearings not supported by Form-F taxable @ 4% : ₹ 18,56,684/- Total Taxable Turnover determined : ₹ 85,11,724/- Therefore, the balance tax due was determined at ₹ 77,129/-, out of the total due determined at ₹ 2,37,463/- by the Assessing Authority and accordingly, passed the assessment order on 02.06.2015 and sent a Notice in Form-3 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined at ₹ 92,794/-, out of the total due determined at ₹ 2,89,324/- by the Assessing Authority and accordingly, passed the assessment order on 02.06.2015 and sent a Notice in Form-3 to the petitioner for remittance of the same. (vi) Aggrieved over the assessment orders, dated 02.06.2015, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Puducherry, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, disallowing the turnover claimed at concessional rate/exemption and taxed the turnover @ 4% for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and 2001-12 to 2013-14, as interstate sale without declaration forms, the petitioner herein, filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry (hereinafter referred to as The Appellate Authority ) in Appeal Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22/CST/2015-16/AAC, contending that the Assessing Officer, without accepting the declaration forms, which were produced, at the time of hearing and without considering, the uploaded declaration forms, has passed the Assessment orders. (vii) The Appellate Authority passed two separate common orders dated 18.09.2015, for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and 2001-12 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment related to the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and have been taken by the A.O. in the year 2015 thereby allowing nearly three years time to comply all requirements including collection of C-Form. The appellant after contacting the customers regularly for the receipt of declaration Forms, received the same only after issue of assessment orders on 02.06.2015 and immediately uploaded the same through on line. The A.R. submitted copies of the correspondence to show what are the actions initiated by the appellant company to obtain the Form 'C' from the concerned customers. As per the discussions above, I conclude the case by accepting the C-Forms produced at the appellate stage. 15. The appellant along with the appeal memorandum filed the declaration Forms 'C/F' for the inter-state sales made/stock transfer effected for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 as mentioned in the Annexure of this Order. 16. The A.O. verified the Forms and found no defect and accepted the same. 17. The said declaration Forms 'C/F' are hereby forwarded to the A.O. with a direction to verify and accept the declaration Forms submitted by the appellant-assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention is that he is the dealer of bearings, having its business place at No.1, Villianur Main Road, Natesan Nagar, Puducherry and he is a registered dealer and an assessee in the books of Commercial Tax Officer-II, Puducherry under Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (Act No.9 of 2007) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with TIN/CST Registration No.34230003586. As per the Central Sales Tax Act, every dealer should who makes inter state sale to a registered dealer, shall pay the tax at the concessional rate provided they produce Form-C Declarations obtained from the prescribed authority of purchasing dealer at the time of assessment. Further as per Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules, 1957, to avail the concessional rate of tax, the dealer has to submit the Declaration Forms in Form-C to the prescribed authority or Assessing Officer within 3 months after the end of the period to which the Declaration or Certificate relates. This appellant filed the returns for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-201 and the same were admitted by the authorities. The appellant produced the statutory declaration Forms C and F at the time of hearing. But the 1st appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forms, but till date or finalising the Assessment Order, the appellant has not furnished the required declaration forms for claiming concession. Therefore the Assessing Authority has finalised the assessment according to law. The 1st Appellate Authority has passed a reasonable order and there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the 1st Appellate Authority. 11. In these cases, there is no dispute that the Assessing Authority had given an opportunity to the appellant for production of Form-C/F declarations for claiming concession. The appellant himself admitted that notices given to him but even after the appellant has not filed any prescribed forms to the concerned authority. Thereafter the authorities have proceeded further. As against the levy of tax, the appellant has preferred the 1st appeal before the concerned authority and the said authority has declined to receive the forms from the appellant for the reason that there is no valid reason stated by the appellant for non-production of Form-C/F within time. However, the 1st Appellate Authority admitted that he has power to receive the documents later if the appellant offered sufficient cause for non-production of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence. Further, the Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied the Judgments reported in - 1. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Arulmurugan Company - 51 STC 381 (Mad.) 2. Vispro Foundry Engineers Limited Vs. CTO - 81 STC 169 (Mad.) 3. State of A.P Vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cements Production Limited 94 STC 410 (SC) 4. Sree Amman Sprockets and another Vs. CTO 30 VST 260 (Mad) 5. Vasanthi Automobiles Vs. CTO-II, Puducherry - 43 VST 142 (Mad.) 6. Pandi Devi Oil Private Ltd. Vs. Addl. DCTO (lAC), Pondicherry - 90 VST 297 (Mad.) 7 MRF Ltd., Vs. CTO (lAC-I), Puducherry- W.P. No.7260/2015 8. Lucas Indian Service Limited Vs. CTO-I, Puducherry W.P. No.6876/2015. 14. On careful reading of the said Judgments, they reveal that an assessee can be given an opportunity to collect Declaration Forms and furnish them to the Assessing Authority. If the challenge of the assessee to taxability of a particular transaction is turned down, if on sufficient cause the petitioner satisfies the requirements of law, then the claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground of belated submission of statutory forms and belated Form-C would be furnished even before the Appellate Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of the same, the declaration forms were uploaded in the website of the department. (iii) That the Tribunal, ought to have seen that as per the provisions of the Act and principles laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessing officer ought to have accepted the declaration forms uploaded / produced and granted concessional rate of tax on interstate sale or exemption on stock transfer as the case may be by reopening the assessment. (iv) That the Tribunal, ought to have held that the appellate authority being a quasi judicial authority, should have considered the declaration forms uploaded in the website of the department and produced at the time of hearing of the appeal, on merits and in the interest of justice, ought to have granted concessional rate of tax or exemption as the case may be in respect of the turnover covered by declaration forms. (v) That the Tribunal, ought to have held that the appellate authority erred in not considering the declaration forms uploaded and produced at the time of hearing and dismissing the appeals. (vi) That the Tribunal, ought to have held that as per the provisions of the Act and principles laid down by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order and remanding for reassessment for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, ought to have allowed the appeals and set aside the appeal order in Appeal Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19/CST/2015-16/AAC dated 18.09.2015 and consequently set aside the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2010-11 and remanded the matter back for re-assessment with a direction to entertain the declaration forms and revise the assessment orders instead of summarily dismissing the appeals. (xii) Placing reliance on the Division Bench judgement of this Court in M/s.K.S.B.Pumps Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu [TCR.No.87 of 2015, dated 30.09.2015] and Vista Security Technics Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Puducherry [TCR.Nos.51 to 57 of 2015, dated 08.07.2015], learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Courts have consistently held that when C-Form Declaration is submitted, even before the Appellate Tribunal, the same has to be accepted and accordingly, assessment has to be made. He further submitted that all the authorities have failed to consider that sufficient cause was shown for non-compliance. (xiii) Learned counsel also placed before the Court the e-mail sent on various dates to variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were produced at the time of hearing and went wrong in not considering the declaration forms which were uploaded, in the assessment order. 11. On the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that in respect of the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 (proof has been filed) and whereas, it was not done in the case of assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11, we have perused the list of documents filed along with all the appeals. They are as hereunder: 1. Appeal Memorandum - in Duplicate. 2. Original Assessment Order with a copy thereof. 3. Receipt for payment of disputed tax 4. Application for stay collection of disputed tax till the disposal of appeal-in duplicate. 5. Authorisation in favour of the authorised representative. 12. Added further, during the course of the hearing of the instant revision petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced emails sent to the vendors for obtaining 'C' form declarations, and for producing the same before the assessing officer and further submitted that though steps were taken, the dealer could not produce the same. According to the petitioner, though sufficient cause was shown, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly do the needful. Kindly find the attachment for detail - Thanking you - Jeyesh Bhatt - East Coast Bearings. (6) E-mail dated 20.10.2014 sent from East Coast Bearings to Centralised Accounting Team-HO-EID: Dear sir, Kind attn mr.Saleem Subash, As per the discussion we are forwarding herewith the FOM C reminder kindly do the needful. Pl also send contact detail. Thanks - Jayesh Bhatt, East Coast Bearings. (7) E-mail dated 05.08.2014, sent from East Coast Bearings to Centralised Accounting Team-HO-EID: Dear sir, we request you to kindly find the attached file and do the needful to issue the form 'C' at an earliest. For any clarification please call us at any time. Thanking you - Jayesh Bhatt, East Coast Bearings. (8) E-mail dated 30.09.2014 sent from East Coast Bearings to Centralised Accounting Team - HO - EID : Dear Sir, Still we have not received c form our last date is 08.10.2014. Then after we have to raise debit note for difference in amount. Pl. reply. Regards - Harish, East Coast Bearings. (9) E-mail dated 26.09.2014, sent from Centralised Accounting Team-HO-EID to East Coast Bearings: Dear sir, Yesterday we had issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing us for C Form for the past three months. Kindly do the needful on priority and confirm. Thanks, S.Raghu, Bayer. (17) E-mail dated 17.03.2015, sent from East Coast Bearings to Bayer: Dear Sir, As per our discussion, we have not yet received the forms from your end, as per the attached file. All most from the past three months we are following with you for the same but till date we have note recd any thing from you. Kindly release the same by today's courier, failing which we will be force to collect the difference of tax from you. Thanking you, Jayesh Bhatt-East Coast Bearings. (18) E-mail dated 26.09.2014, sent from East Coast Bearings to Bayer: Dear Sir, We request you to kindly find the attached file do the needful to send the C form as per attached file. Thanking you, Jayesh Bhatt, East Coast Bearings. (19) E-mail dated 18.03.2015, sent from East Coast Bearings to Bayer: Dear Sir, Pl. give your Chennai office address with Contact No by return mail. We will collect the same today. Regards, Harish, East Coast Bearings. 14. Perusal of the e-mails show that the petitioner has taken efforts to obtain 'C' declaration forms fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat authority may permit. 16. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Arul Murugan reported in 51 STC 381, a Full Bench of this Court, while dealing with the power of the Appellate Authority, to receive C-Form Declarations, held as follows: We hold that the Tribunal has the power to receive C forms at the time of the appeal, for sufficient cause. The Tribunal can then proceed to the next step of applying the concessional rate of tax to the turnover covered by the C forms. Or, the Tribunal may remand the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The remand may be for the specific purpose of going into the question of sufficient cause. The remand may also be loaded with a finding by the Tribunal that there has been sufficient cause, leaving the scrutiny of the C forms alone to be undertaken on remand. The Tribunal may, if satisfied about the sufficient cause set aside even the assessment order, and direct the assessing authority to re-do the assessment, in which event there would be no occasion for the assessing authority to go into any question of delay in filing the C forms, for with the setting aside of the assessment the whole thing is once again at large. The above said d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llect Declaration Forms and furnish them to the assessing authority if the challenge of the assessee to taxability of a particular transaction is turned down. 18. In Vista Security Technics Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Puducherry [Tax Case (Revision) Nos.51 to 57 of 2015], the assessee requested time to produce the statutory declaration forms, viz., Forms-C, F and I. Assessee could not produce the same, before completing the final assessment. Assessment orders were passed, demanding a higher rate of tax, on the ground that the assessee had not produced the necessary statutory declaration forms. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Though statutory declaration forms were produced, the same were not accepted, on the ground that the assessee had not shown any sufficient cause to file the statutory declaration forms belatedly. Therefore, the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals. As against the said order, the assessee pursued the matter before the Tribunal, which also resulted in dismissal. Accepting the contention that the first Appellate Authority has powers to receive such documents and following the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remitted back to the Tribunal. Again, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, on the ground that C Form declaration were not produced, within five years from the date of the original assessment order, before the Assessing Officer, as per the circular of the Commissioner. 20. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee therein filed Tax Case Revision No.87 of 2015. One of the questions of law, framed by this Court was, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not accepting the C declaration forms filed by the appellant, at the time of hearing, by relying on a circular issued by the Commissioner and on the ground that the same were not filed before the Assessing Officer within a period of five years, when a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 51 STC 381 held that an appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings and that the Tribunal has the power to accept the declaration forms? 21. Following the Full Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arul Murugan reported in 51 STC 381, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s.K.S.B.Pumps Ltd's case (cited supra), at Paragraph 9, held as follows: 9. Insofar as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
