9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere furnished correctly except that the purchases were inadvertently misdescribed as High Seas instead of Form C purchases. The sole reason for declining the Form C is not that the petitioner is not entitled but merely that the system does not permit the downloading of C Form - Rule 5(4) (i) of the CST Delhi Rules is not attracted in the facts of this case. There was no failure on the part of the Petitioner to furnish a return, including reconciliation return or return in accordance with the provisions of law or in payment of tax due according to such return. In fact, the tax demand was Nil and there was no loss on account of Tax revenue to the Department. While in present day and age, technology has immensely facilitated the business transactions but it cannot be permitted to take over completely and prevent the genuine entitlements of the petitioner to be denied merely on the technical ground that the system does not so permit. The systems have been created purely for facilitating and simplifying the business transactions and cannot be self defeating. The respondent cannot plead its helplessness on the ground of the system not enabling it to do so. Once the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Department of Trade Taxes, (2016) 89 VST 312, wherein similar facts were involved, and it was held that the Authority was not justified in declining issue of Form C to the petitioner and directed issuance of Form C pertaining to interstate purchase transactions within three months. 4. The petitioner has thus, prayed for issue of writ of Mandamus or appropriate directions to the respondent to issue requisite number of Form C in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17 and correct their system for release of C Form. 5. The respondent in its short counter affidavit has explained that the statutory Form C could not be issued as the details of purchases were not entered in prescribed Col.R-11.1 which provides for filling details of interstate trade and exports-imports against Form C in the returns filed with the Department. The interstate purchases against Form C were reflected as High Seas purchases in 3rd and 4th quarter in the returns filed for the year 2016-17. By virtue of Section 28 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (herein after referred to as DVAT Act ) if any dealer or person discovers a discrepancy in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasing dealer. The Form C has to be obtained from the Sales Tax Authority of the concerned purchasing dealer and furnished to the selling dealer. 10. Rule 5 (1) to (4) of the CST Rules, Delhi provides for the Authority from which the Declaration Form C may be obtained, use, custody and maintenance of records of such forms and matters incidental thereto. In terms of Rule 5(2) a request has to be made by the dealer to the Commissioner of the Department for issuance of Form C in Form 2C declaring the due return that has been filed for the quarters/ months and the tax due as per return has been made. 11. Rule 5(4) of the CST Rules, 1957 provides for four contingencies when a request for issuance of Form C may be refused by the Commissioner after giving an opportunity of being heard. These are: (i) The applicant had defaulted in furnishing any return including reconciliation return in accordance with the provisions of law or in payment of tax due according to such return; or (ii) defaulted in making of payment of the amount of tax assessed, re-assessed or the penalty imposed; or (iii) not filed proper utilization account in Form 2B of form issued to hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling dealer and evasion of tax to State from where the actual sales are effected. Secondly, the purchasing dealer also cannot suppress such purchases once he issues Form C to the selling dealer. 15. It is not a case where there is a default or concealment or adverse material is found by the Commissioner suggesting inaccurate particulars in the returns. It is the case where all the documents and particulars were furnished correctly except that the purchases were inadvertently misdescribed as High Seas instead of Form C purchases. The sole reason for declining the Form C is not that the petitioner is not entitled but merely that the system does not permit the downloading of C Form. 16. Rule 5(4) (i) of the CST Delhi Rules is not attracted in the facts of this case. There was no failure on the part of the Petitioner to furnish a return, including reconciliation return or return in accordance with the provisions of law or in payment of tax due according to such return. In fact, the tax demand was Nil and there was no loss on account of Tax revenue to the Department. 17. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and its connected c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
