2015 (7) TMI 309 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes assessment order, demands fresh assessment based on statutory forms. Refunds/adjustments after new order issued.

Weir BDK Valves, A Unit of Weir India Pvt Ltd (Formserly B.D.K. Engineering Industries Limited) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit - 1) And Others

Weir BDK Valves, A Unit of Weir India Pvt Ltd (Formserly B.D.K. Engineering Industries Limited) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ... Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the assessment order dated 25-05-2011 and subsequent demand notices.2. Rejection of appeals by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals).3. Notice issued under Section 14 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.4. Consideration of statutory forms ('C' Forms and 'H' Forms) submitted post-assessment.5. Application of Circular No.9/2006-07 dated 07-06-2006.6. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the assessment order dated 25-05-2011 and subsequent demand notices:The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order dated 25-05-2011, which levied a higher rate of tax due to non-submission of statutory forms ('C' Forms and 'H' Forms) and the subsequent demand notices. The petitioner contended that they had submitted some forms and requested additional time to collect the remaining forms from their customers. Despite this, the Assessing Authority issued the assessment order and demand notices without considering the forms submitted later. The court noted that the petitioner had claimed a refund of Rs. 3,56,15,297/- and argued that the Assessing Authority should have allowed more time for the submission of forms and considered them in the assessment process.2. Rejection of appeals by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals):The petitioner filed appeals against the assessment order and demand notices, which were dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The First Appellate Authority found that the appeals were filed beyond the period of 180 days and thus could not condone the delay. The court observed that the petitioner had a bona fide reason for the delay, as they needed time to collect the forms from customers and had acquired the business of BDK Engineering Industries within four months of the assessment year 2008-09. The court held that the First Appellate Authority did not consider the petitioner's reasons properly.3. Notice issued under Section 14 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act:The petitioner also challenged the notice dated 11-10-2012 issued by the third respondent under Section 14 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The court's decision to quash the assessment order and demand notices inherently addressed this issue, as the notice under Section 14 was part of the subsequent actions taken by the respondents.4. Consideration of statutory forms ('C' Forms and 'H' Forms) submitted post-assessment:The petitioner argued that the Assessing Authority should have considered the statutory forms submitted after the assessment order, as per Circular No.9/2006-07 dated 07-06-2006. The court agreed, noting that the Circular mandates that if statutory forms are filed subsequent to the completion of the assessment, the Assessing Authority should reopen the assessment to consider these forms. The court emphasized that the benefit available under the law cannot be denied on technical grounds and that the statutory forms can also be submitted at the appellate stage.5. Application of Circular No.9/2006-07 dated 07-06-2006:The court highlighted the importance of Circular No.9/2006-07, which instructs assessing authorities to consider statutory forms submitted after the assessment by reopening the assessment under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 39 of the KVAT Act. The court found that the Assessing Authority acted contrary to this Circular by not considering the forms submitted by the petitioner post-assessment.6. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:The petitioner contended that the delay in filing appeals was due to the time required to collect statutory forms from customers. The court found this to be a bona fide reason and held that the First Appellate Authority should have considered the petitioner's reasons for the delay. The court concluded that the matter should be reconsidered by the Assessing Authority, giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit the statutory forms.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the assessment order dated 25-05-2011, the subsequent demand notices, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the assessment afresh, taking into account the statutory forms produced by the petitioner. The court also ordered that any amount paid in pursuance of the demand notices should be refunded or adjusted only after the new assessment order is passed.