9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not identical. Appeal dismissed. - VATAP No. 268 of 2018(O&M) - - - Dated:- 6-12-2019 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the Appellant ORDER JASWANT SINGH, J. 1. The Appellant-Partnership firm through instant Appeal under Section 36 of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'VAT Act') is seeking quashing of order dated 3.4.2019 passed by VAT Tribunal which has dismissed appeal of the Appellant. 2. The Appellant is engaged in manufacturing, sale and purchase of building material i.e. Rori, Bajri, Sand etc. The Appellant as required under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 submitted form 'C' obtained from buyers where sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been given option to furnish a single declaration form C for all the transactions of one quarter. In the absence of this enabling provision in the second proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Rules, the assessee would have been required to furnish a separate form C for each transaction. Thus the word 'may' has been used in the aforesaid provision to enable the assessee to furnish single form C for many transactions of a single quarter and in absence of that provision, a separate C form would be required for each transaction. Similar provision of first proviso to rule 12(5) of the Rules has already been interpreted by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2019 in appeal STA 209 of 2017-18 M/s Sunil Kumar Vakil Kumar, Tohana V/s State of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee for furnishing a separate C form for each of the remaining three quarters and for passing approximate order in accordance with law regarding the same after examining and verifying the same. 5. Having scrutinized record of the case and heard counsel for the of Appellant, we find that present appeal is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by Tribunal. The Tribunal has correctly interpreted scheme of the Act and denied benefit of single C Form for the entire year. Tribunal has considered judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. (Supra) which is basis of present appeal. Calcutta High Court has dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
