TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner and to quash the same in so far as the assessment year CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014 are concerned, because the attachment has been made without there being an assessment order passed for the assessment years CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014. 2. The case of the Petitioner in all these Writ Petitions is as follows:- 2.1. The Petitioner is the manufacturer of vegetable oil and a registered dealer under the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Petitioner used to buy imported RBD Palm Oil from various importers and transport the oil to its factory at Thirubuvani at Pondicherry. The Petitioner is effecting local sales, inter-state sales and also stock transfers. The local sales of refined vegetable oil is taxable at 5% and the fatty acid oil is taxable at 3%. For the assessment years, CST 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the Petitioner effected local sales, inter-state sales and also stock transfers and reported the same in the monthly returns under the PVAT Act and the CST Act. For the assessment years CST 2011-2012 and CST 2012-2013, the 1st Respondent issued a notice dated 9.1.2015, proposing to levy tax at 5% for the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd so requested to withdraw the same. In the mean time, the Petitioner submitted some 'C' forms for the assessment year CST 2012-2013 and also filed an application dated 13.07.2015 before the 1st Respondent, requesting to rectify the assessment order dated 20.2.2015. Further, the Petitioner also filed another application dated 13.07.2015, requesting the 1st Respondent to rectify the assessment order dated 20.2.2015 passed for the assessment year TIN 2012-2013 to grant the benefit of input tax credit on the strength of the C forms now filed by them. However, the 1st Respondent till date has not rectified the assessment orders dated 20.2.2015 passed for the assessment years CST 2011-2012, TIN 2011-2012, CST 2012-2013 and TIN 2012-2013 based on the rectification applications dated 23.3.2015 and 13.07.2015. Further, in respect of bank attachment made for the above assessment years and also for the assessment year CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014, the 1st Respondent has not taken any action. Further, without there being an assessment order for the assessment year CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner towards arrears of tax is withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 and hence, these Writ Petitions are barred by res-judicata and liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the action of the 1st Respondent in attaching the bank account of the Petitioner, without considering the rectification applications of the Petitioner is unsustainable and that if the C forms and Form F declarations uploaded on line had been considered, the demand would have been reduced considerably and that the non-consideration of the rectification applications filed by the Petitioner is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that without there being an assessment order for the assessment year CST 2013-2014 and TIN 2013-2014, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner towards arrears of tax is without authority of law and prayed for allowing these Writ Petitions. 5. The learned Government Pleader for the 1st Respondent contended that in order to avail the concessional rate of tax, the dealers are bound to submit statutory forms as per Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957 read with Section 3(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1st Respondent under Section 73 of the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of the reliefs, as prayed for in these Writ Petitions. 8. Upon perusal of the Rules related to furnishing of Form C and Form F as provided under the Pondicherry VAT Rules, it is apparent that the time limit has been fixed. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight that the Central Sales Tax Rules does not provide for any time limit. Since the State being the authority to make its own Rules and the question is as to whether the Respondents would be justified in rejecting the claim of the concessional levy/exemption on the ground of non-furnishing of statutory forms within 90 days time fixed under the Act. Furnishing of the statutory forms is not within the control of the Petitioner and is dependent on the other State dealers' cooperation. If on sufficient cause, the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of law, then the claim cannot be rejected unjustifiably merely on the ground of belated submissions of statutory forms. 9. In the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 51-STC-281 (State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Arulmurug....