2019 (6) TMI 1242 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Petitioner directed to appeal assessment order under CST Act 2014-15. Appellate process outlined, enforcement halted.

The court directed the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner regarding the challenge to the assessment order under the CST Act for the ... Validity of assessment order - Telangana VAT Act - grievance of the petitioner as against the impugned order of assessment is that the petitioner was unable to obtain ‘F’ Forms for part of the turn over, from four different States, on account of certain issues and that these Forms cannot be generated now online, as the Forms related to the assessment year 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner should first go before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner by way of a statutory appeal. The impugned order though dated 30.03.2019, was received on 28.05.2019 and the limitation for filing a statutory appeal has not expired. The Appellate Authority may examine whether it is a fit case for accepting other evidence as indicated by the Supreme Court in Ambica Steels Limited [2009 (3) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT] Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to assessment order under CST Act, 1956 for the year 2014-15 due to inability to obtain 'F' Forms from four different States.Analysis:The petitioner, a dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act and the CST Act, challenged an assessment order under the CST Act for the year 2014-15. The petitioner's grievance was the inability to obtain 'F' Forms for part of the turnover from four different States. The petitioner argued that in such cases, the Assessing Officer should consider other evidence, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ambica Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 309.The court noted that the Assessing Officer must determine if the petitioner was genuinely unable to procure 'F' Forms before deciding to condone their non-filing. Relying on the Special Standing Counsel's submission, the court emphasized that allowing other evidence in the absence of statutory forms should be an exception, not a rule. It was highlighted that the petitioner should establish the exceptional circumstances before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority.The court directed the petitioner to first appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, as the limitation for filing a statutory appeal had not expired. The Writ Petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to file a regular appeal and instructing the 1st respondent not to enforce the impugned order until the appeal is decided. The Appellate Authority was advised to consider if accepting other evidence was appropriate, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ambica Steels Limited. No costs were awarded in this case.In conclusion, any pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition were to be closed as a result of this judgment.