TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner directly to respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 shall issue certificate of concessional rate of duty. According to the petitioner, the goods supplied were in the course of interstate trade. The objections of the respondent No.4 for issuing C Form are completely invalid - From the reply filed by the State authorities, it emerges that such C Forms were not issued on account of anomaly in the valuations. As a State authority respondent No.4 ought to have conveyed this reason to the petitioner who could have either pointed out that there is no anomaly or reconcile the figures if it was possible. In the meantime, for want of C Forms the petitioner went on suffering duty at the higher rates. The Assessing Officer in West Bengal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders were issued in December, 2008 and January July, 2009. Clause 13 which is common in all agreements pertains to taxes and duties. As per Clause 13.1 the petitioner would pay all the customs duties, excise duties, sales tax etc. However, as per Clause 13.2 TSECL would provide concessional sales tax declaration in prescribed forms which is popularly come to be known as C Form. This Clause reads as under: 13.2. Concessional Sales Tax declaration forms, as admissible, shall be issued to the Contractor, on request, for all items (as indentified in the price schedule of the Bid) to be supplied directly by the Contractor as well as for the items to be supplied by the Sub-suppliers as sale-in-transit. 3. The case of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id authorities as emerging from an affidavit-in-reply dated 05.11.2016 is as under: 9. That, in reply to the averments and/or contentions made in paragraph 5 to 14 of the Writ Petition I state that, the Respondents No.4, TSECL has applied for issuance of 10 (ten) Nos. C-Form on 25.06.2012, out of which 8(eight) Nos. C-Forms were issued to the dealer on 26.06.2012 keeping aside the the remaining 2(two) Nos. C-Forms. But, the rest 2(two) Nos. of C Form as per requirement of dealer which are relating to the billing of Prayas Automation Pvt. Ltd. 948, South Kumrakhali, Sonarpur Station Road, P.O. Narendrapur, Kolkata-700103 bearing invoice nos. TI 0802038 dated 29.02.2008 and TI 0711028 dated 01.11.2007 having value ₹ 33,01,750.00 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument. 7. Learned counsel Mr. A. Nandi appeared for respondents No.1 to 3 and submitted that there is no prayer made against the said authorities. In any case, he abides by the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the said respondents. We may recall respondent No.4 in the affidavit-in-reply has cited a reason that the petitioner being a registered dealer in Tripura, cannot claim C Form from the respondent No.4; which itself we find a somewhat of a strange argument. However, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had obtained registration in State of Tripura only on 01.10.2011 which was subsequent to the period in question. When confronted with this fact, counsel for the respondent argued that the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reason that the respondent No.4 itself had also approached the VAT department for issuance of C Forms. From the reply filed by the State authorities, it emerges that such C Forms were not issued on account of anomaly in the valuations. As a State authority respondent No.4 ought to have conveyed this reason to the petitioner who could have either pointed out that there is no anomaly or reconcile the figures if it was possible. In the meantime, for want of C Forms the petitioner went on suffering duty at the higher rates. The Assessing Officer in West Bengal who had jurisdiction over the petitioner could not postpone the assessments for the fear of the same getting time barred. 9. Be that as it may, in peculiar facts of the case, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|