2019 (10) TMI 1370 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants relief in Writ Petition challenging CST Act Assessment Order. Reassessment ordered with specific forms.

M/s. Shrey Electro Sales Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, (Now Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

The Court granted relief to the petitioner in a Writ Petition challenging the Assessment Order under the CST Act 1956 for the year 2014-2015. The Court ... Principles of Natural Justice - assessment order passed in a mechanical manner without granting any time to file objections to the proposed notice - permission to file C and H Forms - HELD THAT:- In GODREJ AGROVET LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT & NOVARTIS HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY NOVARTIS NUTRITION INDIA PVT. LTD.) VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, BENZ CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA [2005 (10) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the Court directed the petitioner to produce “C” forms within a period of three weeks, which shall be received by the authority for its consideration to decide as to whether the petitioner had shown any sufficient cause for the belated filing of the “C” forms and appropriate further orders shall be passed in accordance with law. Thus, it is a fit case where the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted to the extent of directing the authority to reopen assessment filed by the petitioner, and consider the documents, more particularly, ‘C’ form and ‘H’ form declarations and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed. Issues:1) Challenge to Assessment Order under CST Act 1956 for the year 2014-2015.2) Allegation of passing assessment order in a mechanical manner without granting time for objections or hearing.3) Inaction on request for reopening assessment.4) Claim of exemption under Section 5(3) of CST Act based on Form H declarations.5) Enforcement of demand under Revenue Recovery Act and APVAT Act 2005.6) Interpretation of 'clerical or arithmetical mistake' for rectification of assessment.7) Request for fresh assessment order allowing submission of necessary documents.8) Precedents of similar cases directing fresh consideration of assessment.9) Tribunal's order allowing submission of 'H' forms for fresh assessment.Analysis:1) The Writ Petition challenged the Assessment Order under the CST Act 1956 for the year 2014-2015, alleging that it was passed in a mechanical manner without providing an opportunity for objections or a hearing. The petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in granite processing, contended that higher tax was levied without supporting evidence for direct exports, resulting in a net turnover determination of Rs. 3,68,01,780.2) The petitioner submitted Direct Export documents and declarations post the Impugned Proceedings, requesting a revision of the assessment proceedings. Reference was made to Rule 60 of APVAT Rules and Section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956, allowing rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes apparent from the record, as interpreted by the Apex Court in similar cases.3) The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act based on Form H declarations, arguing that the demand was unenforceable. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment order, emphasizing the need to submit Form C and Form H declarations along with proof of exports for consideration.4) The Court cited precedents where similar issues were addressed, directing the Assessing Authority to reconsider matters by allowing submission of 'H' forms and other necessary documents. The Tribunal's order in another case supported the reexamination of issues with the submission of required forms for appropriate decision-making within a specified timeframe.5) Considering the legal precedents and the circumstances of the case, the Court granted relief to the petitioner by directing the authority to reopen the assessment and consider the submitted documents, particularly 'C' form and 'H' form declarations, for passing orders within three months from the date of the order.6) Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed to the extent of the relief granted, with no costs imposed. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed accordingly.