2015 (8) TMI 684 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court allows writ petitions, directs physical submission for assessment, upholding petitioners' rights

The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders, and directed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment afresh after ... Submission of Statutory Declaration forms – Uploading declaration in electronic format – Assesse aggrieved by assessment order passed by competent authority on ground that they have not submitted part of declaration forms as required under law therefore, impugned order proposed to demand differential tax – Whether there was failure on part of Petitioners to submit statutory declaration forms and had violated provision of law – Held that:- Sections 6A and 8(4) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provides that assessee should furnish declaration within prescribed time – There was no provision under Puducherry Value Added Tax Rules to submit declaration forms in electronic mode as has been suggested by Department – Impugned orders was passed on misconception of provisions – When there no specific indication in CST Act or PVAT Rules to provide declaration forms in electronic form – Assesse could not be asked to upload declaration forms online in absence of facility for such purpose – Since it was not in dispute that each of assesse have already submitted their original declaration forms before Assessing Authority, he was bound to take same for completing assessment without insisting on uploading declaration forms in electronic format – Petitions allowed and impugned orders set aside – Decided in favour of Assesse. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the assessment order due to non-submission of statutory declaration forms.2. Validity of the Department's insistence on online submission of declaration forms.3. Legal provisions and rules regarding submission of declaration forms.4. Assessment procedure and the Department's jurisdiction.5. Availability of alternate remedy.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the assessment order due to non-submission of statutory declaration forms:The petitioners challenged the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on the grounds that they had not submitted the required declaration forms, leading to a demand for differential tax. The core issue was whether the petitioners failed to submit the statutory declaration forms and if such failure violated any legal provisions, resulting in tax liability.2. Validity of the Department's insistence on online submission of declaration forms:The Department issued notices requiring the submission of declaration forms (Form C/F/H) online. The petitioners responded, citing difficulties in uploading the voluminous data due to technical issues and sought extensions. Despite their efforts to comply, including offering to submit physical forms, the Department insisted on online submission, which the petitioners argued was not mandated by law.3. Legal provisions and rules regarding submission of declaration forms:The relevant legal provisions include Sections 6A, 8(4), and 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. These provisions require the submission of declaration forms within a prescribed time, with the possibility of extensions for sufficient cause. Rule 14(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) Rules, 1967, allows submission of forms before the final assessment.4. Assessment procedure and the Department's jurisdiction:The Court found that the Department's insistence on online submission was not supported by any specific rule under the Central Sales Tax Act or the Puducherry Value Added Tax Rules. The Department's refusal to accept physical forms submitted by the petitioners was deemed unreasonable. The Court emphasized that the assessment should be based on the original forms submitted, without insisting on online submission.5. Availability of alternate remedy:The Department argued that the petitioners had a right to appeal against the impugned orders. However, the Court held that the impugned orders were passed in breach of statutory provisions, justifying the petitioners' approach to the Court.Conclusion:The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders, and directed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment afresh after receiving the statutory declarations in physical form. The Department was also directed to allow the petitioners to download the forms and complete the assessment based on the physical submissions. This decision underscored that the Department's insistence on online submission was not legally mandated and that the petitioners' rights should not be compromised due to technicalities.