TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms Tribunal's directive for VATO to verify 'C' & 'F' Forms, emphasizing post-amendment requirements.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Value Added Tax. Versus Rajendra Kirpal & Company</h3> Commissioner of Value Added Tax. Versus Rajendra Kirpal & Company - TMI Issues: Revenue's appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal remitting the matter for verification of 'C' & 'F' Forms under Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act post-amendment in 2005.In this judgment, the High Court of Delhi addressed the issue raised by the Revenue against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which directed the VATO to verify the 'C' & 'F' Forms produced during the appellate proceedings and grant relief to the dealer if found in order. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's view was erroneous post the 2005 amendment of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Revenue highlighted that the dealer had not approached the prescribed authority within the stipulated time nor sought extension as permitted by law. The Tribunal, however, relied on the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd., 1994(94) STC 410 (SC), which interpreted the un-amended Section 8(4) benevolently. The Revenue emphasized the post-amendment requirement of submitting declarations within the prescribed time, as per the proviso to Section 8(4), and also referred to Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Act (Registration & Turnover Rules, 1957) regarding the satisfaction of the prescribed authority. The dealer argued that the necessary application for extension had been filed, while the forms were initially produced before the VATO without the application, leading to rejection. The question arose whether the Tribunal's view that the assessing authority had to consider the admissibility of forms based on the material on record was correct.The High Court noted the 2005 amendment to Section 8(4) by Parliament, prescribing a three-month period for submission. The assessee had indeed submitted the application along with the 'C' form as required by law. Considering the facts and nature of the forms, the VATO was rightly directed by the Tribunal to conduct the necessary enquiry. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
TaxTMI 