2021 (7) TMI 641 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Upholds Decision Denying 'F' Form Filing

The court upheld the assessing authority's decision to refuse permission for filing 'F' forms for interstate transfer due to lack of sufficient cause for ... Reopening of assessment proceedings - Refusal to permit the petitioner to file ‘F’ forms - interstate transfer to branch unit at Karnataka - HELD THAT:- Instant case relates to the assessment year 2012-13. Hence, the dealer was required to file the declaration forms within June, 2013 as per the amended rule. Admittedly, he failed to submit the declaration forms within the said period. In 2015 show cause notice was issued and ex-parte assessment order was passed on 31.10.2015, as the petitioner did not participate in the said proceedings. Thereafter, demand notice dated 09.11.2015 was issued and as the petitioner did not pay the tax liability, notice of attachment of land was issued on 09.02.2018. The dealer was required to submit ‘F’ declaration forms with regard to interstate branch transfer by June, 2013, but he failed and neglected to do so. Only after the recovery proceedings being initiated in respect of assessment order, he approached the 1st respondent in 2019 for enlargement of time to submit the declaration forms - plea of closure of business for the delay in submission of declaration forms is extremely facile and evasive. The forms related to interstate transportation of goods between the Head office of the assessee to its branch office in the assessment year 2012-13. Under such circumstances, it is not understood why the assessee failed to obtain the declaration forms from its branch office and submit the same since 2013. Even if one accepts the assessee’s version that he was unaware of the assessment proceedings and the order passed therein in 2015 due to closure of business, it does not give sufficient explanation for its failure to furnish declaration forms since 2013. While the proviso to Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules gives opportunity to the dealer to make belated submission of declaration/certificate when sufficient cause is shown, the said proviso cannot be permitted to be abused by an indolent and indifferent dealer, who at a belated stage approaches the authorities without proper cause for submission of the declarations/certificates and seeks to reopen a concluded assessment proceedings on such score - the factual matrix of the case does not disclose any justifiable or sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in submission of the declaration forms. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the assessing authority - Petition dismissed. Issues:Refusal to permit filing 'F' forms for interstate transfer, Reopening of assessment proceedings, Enlargement of limitation period for submission of forms, Sufficiency of cause for delay in filing forms.Refusal to permit filing 'F' forms for interstate transfer:The petitioner sought permission to file 'F' forms for interstate transfer to his branch unit at Karnataka and reopen assessment proceedings. The 1st respondent had refused the request citing lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner argued closure of business and unawareness of assessment proceedings as reasons for the delay. However, the court agreed with the 1st respondent, emphasizing that sufficient cause must be shown for belated submission of forms.Reopening of assessment proceedings:The petitioner's business closure and subsequent unawareness of assessment proceedings were cited as reasons for the delay in submitting 'F' forms. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking permission to file the forms after recovery proceedings were initiated. The court noted that the forms related to interstate transportation between the petitioner's head office and branch office in the assessment year 2012-13. Despite the closure of the business, the court found the explanation for the delay in submission of forms since 2013 to be inadequate.Enlargement of limitation period for submission of forms:The court analyzed Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules, noting the amendment requiring submission of declaration forms within three months of the assessment year. The court highlighted that the dealer must explain the delay from the end of the truncated time frame, not from the date of assessment proceedings. The court concluded that the factual matrix did not justify the delay in submitting the declaration forms, thus upholding the assessing authority's decision.Sufficiency of cause for delay in filing forms:The court emphasized that the proviso allowing belated submission of forms should not be abused by indifferent dealers seeking to reopen concluded assessment proceedings without sufficient cause. The court held that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was evasive and lacked justification for the entire period from 2013 to 2019. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no illegality or irregularity in the assessing authority's decision.