9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 'C' declaration forms even at the appellate stage, which was nothing but continuation of the assessment proceedings, but also, they being the fact finding authority, were entitled to peruse the facts as the assessment authority. Also, without assigning any valid reason, the appellate authorities have just rejected the declaration forms, causing unnecessary further litigation. The only exercise they could have undertaken was to see the genuineness of the declaration forms and in normal circumstances, the same should have been accepted by the appellate authority in the first instance. Matter remanded back to the Assessment Authority for checking the declaration forms, which were produced before the first appellate authority on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrongly allowed on the turnover of ₹ 2,34,470/- and therefore, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the exemption and assessed the turnover to tax on the ground that the prices are FOR destination. But the appellant's contention is that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in furnishing the declaration before the Assessing Officer to the tune of ₹ 2,52,85,179.50. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order stated that the above contention of the appellants were examined and found that they were not able to prove this sufficient cause that prevented them in furnishing the C declaration forms at the time of hearing. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed certain typed set of papers, before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 2,56,80,443/- at the appropriate rates. The above order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is reasonable and acceptable. Therefore, we also confirm the levy of tax by disallowing the concessional rate of tax on the turnover of ₹ 2,56,80,443/- at the appropriate rates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Inbarajan submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh -Vs- Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd., (1994) 94 STC 410 affirmed the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 and had held that the production of 'C' form at the appellate stage is also permitted subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further time frm the first assessing authority and yet failed to produce the form C before him, it is obvious that the appellate authority would adopt a stiffer standard in judging the sufficient cause shown by the dealer for not producing them earlier. Receipt of the form in appeal cannot be a matter of course; it should be allowed only where sufficient cause is established by the dealer for not producing them before the first assessing authority as contemplated by rule 12(7). The requirement of that sub-rule cannot be excluded from consideration by the appellate authority while judging the sufficiency of the cause shown. It is the primary obligation of the dealer and his failure to abide by it must be properly explained. State of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demanding the exercise, the implementation must be done as a matter of course, on the doctrine of implied or ancillary powers. This decision of the Madras High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Limited (94 STC 410). 5. The opinion of the Special Government Pleader (Taxes), Chennai was also sought in this regard. The Special Government Pleader (Taxes) has opined as follows:- The entire reading of the decision in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., shows that the Full Bench decision in Arulmurugan and Co., case has not been considered, dealt with or referred to for deciding the issue. The decision has been rendered on the facts of the case pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and the Circulars of the Revenue Department from time to time, we are satisfied that in the present case, the two appellate authorities have concurrently failed to appreciate not only the fact that the Assessee was entitled to file the 'C' declaration forms even at the appellate stage, which was nothing but continuation of the assessment proceedings, but also, they being the fact finding authority, were entitled to peruse the facts as the assessment authority. We also find that without assigning any valid reason, the appellate authorities have just rejected the declaration forms, causing unnecessary further litigation. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
