9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The furnishing of ‘F’ forms is distinct and different from the declaration in Forms ‘C’ and ‘D’ under the CST Act, 1956, and upon furnishing of which, depends the availment of concessional rate of tax by the selling dealer. Petition dismissed - decided against Revenue. - STRP Nos. 326/2017 & 419/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI AND Mrs. S. SUJATHA JJ. Mr. Vikram A.Huilgol, HCGP for petitioner-revenue. None for respondent-assessee. ORDER Dr. VINEET KOTHARI. J., 1. The petitioner-revenue has filed these revision petitions under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, purportedly raising substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, dated 16.12.2016 in STA Nos.1763-1764/2014 (M/s. V.N. Corporation vs. State of Karnataka) whereby, the learned Tribunal allowed the assessee s appeals and held that declaration of F Form under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (for short CST (R T) Rules, 1957), covering a period over one month can be accepted by the Assessing Authority as valid in support of the branch transfers or stock transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parliament in prescribing the filing of F form for stock transfers covering more than one calendar month as the Parliament has used the word may in Rule 12(5) of the CST (R T) Rules, 1957 which indicates that it is not mandatory but only directory. In this connection, the learned Chartered Accountant has relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Cipla Ltd., V/s. DCCT and others reported in (2013) 61 VST page 445 . In this judgment, the Calcutta High Court while interpreting the provisions of Rule 12(5) of the CST (R T) Rules, 1957 which are pari materia with the provisions prevalent in this case as well, has held as under: It appears that the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal has misconstrued Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 which provides that the declaration referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 shall be in form F. The proviso to Rule 12(5) provides that a single declaration might cover transfer of goods, by a dealer, to any other place of business, or agent, or principal as the case may be, effected during a period of one calendar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant which cover stock transfers of more than one calendar month could be considered for the purposes of extending the benefit of exemption on stock transfers and the FAA has wrongly formed an opinion that the filing of single F form for one calendar month is mandatory in terms of Rule 12(5) of CST (R T) Rules, 1957, disregarding the fact that it is only directory as the said provision uses the word may and not shall . Accordingly, this issue is answered in negative and against the revenue. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-revenue has urged before us that the first proviso to Rule 12(5) of the CST (R T) Rules, 1957, clearly provided for furnishing of such F forms for a period of one calendar month and admittedly, the First Appellate Authority found in its impugned order dated 12.05.2014 that some of the F forms cover period far exceeding one month namely, 5 to 8 months of the transaction of such branch transfers and in view of the clear violation of Rule 12(5) the CST (R T) Rules, 1957, the learned Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the learned Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-6), Bengaluru. 3. We have heard learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) [are true and that no inter-State sale has been effected, he may, at the time of, or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3),] be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. [(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall preclude reassessment by the assessing authority on the ground of discovery of new facts or revision by a higher authority on the ground that the findings of the assessing authority are contrary to law, and such reassessment or revision may be done in accordance with the provisions of general sales tax law of the State.] 6. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Cipla Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner, CT (Cal) relied upon by the learned Tribunal along with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
