2025 (11) TMI 1431 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Verified Form F must be considered for concessional tax on inter-State branch transfers under Section 6A CST

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.

HC held that the assessee was entitled to consideration of concessional tax treatment on inter-State branch transfers upon production of original Form F, ... Production of Form ‘F’ on piecemeal basis - eligibility for reduced rate tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on production of Form ‘C’ for inter state sale and Nil rate of tax on production of Form ‘F’ for branch transfer - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has produced certain Form ‘F’ before the First Appellate Authority and certain portion of Form ‘F’ before the Tribunal and now the last Form ‘F’ is produced before this Court. The transactions of Rs. 6,29,59,345/- were not considered due to non-production of the original Form. Now the original Form is produced and verified by the authority. However, petitioner has assured that the claim of the amount for which the Form ‘F’ which are not produced would not be contested by the petitioner afterwards. The dues subsequent to non-production of the remaining Form ‘F’ will be paid by the petitioner in accordance with law. As the controversy in the petitioner is in very narrow compass and relates only to production of Form ‘F’ and claim of legitimate right of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner to the aforesaid extent. The present writ petition is allowed to the extent of considering of Form ‘F’ produced by the petitioner and as verified by the respondent. The respondent shall ascertain the remaining transactions and the same would be payable by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of passing of this order. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether original statutory Form 'F' for branch transfer, produced belatedly after multiple rounds of litigation, ought to be accepted and considered by the tax authorities/tribunal for allowing nil-rate treatment under the CST Act / GVAT Act. 2. Whether piecemeal production of Form 'F' across successive appellate proceedings can be entertained and, specifically, whether a duplicate (as opposed to original) Form 'F' justifies denial of benefit when an original is subsequently produced and its veracity is verified by the issuing authority. 3. Whether the court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 to direct the tax authority/Tribunal to consider a statutory document produced during the writ proceedings, where the claimant gives a final waiver in respect of any other unproduced Forms 'F' for the same assessment year. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Acceptance of belated production of original Form 'F' for branch transfer Legal framework: Nil-rate or reduced-rate tax treatment for branch transfers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the corresponding Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is contingent upon production of statutory Form 'F' (for branch transfers) for the relevant transactions. Precedent Treatment: No prior judicial authorities were cited by the Court in the judgment; the Court proceeds on settled statutory principles governing entitlement on production of prescribed forms. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the transaction was not disputed to be a branch transfer and that the Form 'F' produced relates to the specified transaction. Given the narrow compass of the controversy and a settled principle that entitlement to relief under CST/GVAT depends on production of the statutory form, the Court found no merit in denying consideration of the original Form 'F' now produced and verified by the issuing authority. The Court emphasized the genuineness verification carried out by the respondents and the limited nature of the claim (a single specified sum). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a taxpayer produces the original statutory Form 'F' for branch transfer and its authenticity is verified by the issuing authority, the relevant tax authority/Tribunal must consider the same for granting nil-rate treatment even if produced belatedly in proceedings, subject to any statutory bars or procedural requirements not present here. Conclusions: The Court directed that the produced original Form 'F' be considered by the respondent for the specific sum of Rs. 6,29,59,345/-, allowing the claim to be entertained and permitting adjustment/reassessment as appropriate. Issue 2 - Effect of piecemeal production and treatment of duplicate vs original Form 'F' Legal framework: Statutory entitlement depends on production of the prescribed original forms; procedural compliance (original vs duplicate) is material to acceptance where authorities require originals. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal had denied one transaction's benefit on the ground that the produced Form 'F' was in duplicate and not the original. The Court did not cite authority overruling that principle but considered the factual matrix and subsequent production of original. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the Tribunal's prior approach of accepting some Forms 'F' and rejecting others due to non-production of original. However, given that the original Form in respect of the disputed sum was later produced before the Court and was verified by the issuing office, the Court treated the earlier rejection as a matter remedied by the subsequent authenticated production. The Court also took into account the petitioner's assurance that the claim relates to a final, single remaining amount and a waiver of future claims for unproduced Forms 'F' for that assessment year. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Procedural deficiency (production of duplicate instead of original) that led to rejection can be cured by later production of the original, provided authenticity is verifiable and there is no overriding statutory prohibition or time-bar preventing acceptance at that stage. Conclusions: The Court allowed consideration of the original Form 'F' for the disputed sum, implicitly holding that piecemeal production culminating in submission of an original and verified document can justify acceptance despite earlier rejections based on duplicates. Issue 3 - Exercise of writ jurisdiction to direct consideration of document produced during writ proceedings and effect of judicially elicited waiver Legal framework: Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 can be exercised to correct jurisdictional or legal errors or to direct administrative authorities to perform statutory duties, subject to judicial restraint and the facts of each case. Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents were relied upon; the Court applied general principles of writ relief to a narrow factual dispute about acceptance of statutory documentation and entitlement to tax relief. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the litigation concerned a single narrow issue of entitlement dependent purely on production and verification of a statutory form. The petitioner offered a binding assurance (waiver) that the present claim would be the last claim for that assessment year and would not seek benefits for any remaining unproduced Forms 'F'. The respondents had verified the authenticity of the produced Form 'F'. In light of these factors and in the interests of finality after protracted litigation, the Court found it appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the respondent to consider the produced and verified Form 'F' and to quantify/pay any remaining liability within a fixed period. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The court may, in a proper case involving narrow documentary entitlement and where authenticity is verified and the claimant gives a final waiver of further claims for the assessment year, exercise writ jurisdiction to direct tax authorities to consider the belatedly produced statutory document and to complete consequential assessment steps within a specified timeframe. Conclusions: The Court directed the respondent to consider the produced and verified Form 'F' and to ascertain and quantify remaining transactions, with the petitioner directed to pay any resulting dues within twelve weeks; the writ petition was allowed to that limited extent. Ancillary observations 1. The Court noted the protracted nature of the dispute (approximately two decades) arising from non-production of prescribed forms and treated finality and narrowness of the present claim as material considerations. 2. The Court's order is fact-specific: acceptance was conditioned on (a) production of the original Form 'F', (b) verification of its authenticity by the issuing office, and (c) the petitioner's assurance/waiver that no further claims for unproduced Forms 'F' for the assessment year would be pursued.