TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucts from Respondent No.4- BPCL at a concessional rate as per the scheme of section 8 of the Act. The Petitioners also has a business of transportation. The Petitioners lease trucks, trailers and tankers for transportation activities. 3. For the period between the year 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Petitioners had purchased goods by submitting Form-C. The Respondent No.3- Assistant VAT Officer, Daman noticed that the Petitioners had purchased petrol, diesel from BPCL for resale in Daman; however, the Petitioners used the same in their transportation business and contravened and misused Form-C issued to the Petitioners. The Respondent No.3 concluded that the Petitioners were liable for penalty under the Act and, the penalty was imposed under section 10(d) of the Act. The Respondent No.3 passed an assessment order on 13 September 2017. 4. The Petitioners' appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, was dismissed on 26 March 2018. After that, the Petitioners filed second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioners applied on 3 April 2018 requesting the Respondent No.2 to permit the Petitioners to pay the disputed dues by way of installments. A revised proposal was submitted on 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondents to issue Form-C. Mr. V.Sridharan contended that under the scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act more particularly section 8 read with Rules, if stipulations are satisfied, rights accrue to a dealer for issuance of Form-C, and unless a specific ground is stipulated in the Rules or the Act for denial of issuance of Form-C, it cannot be so withheld. It is contended that the scheme for issuance of Form-C is a self-contained code. It is contended that the Central Sales Tax (Goa, Daman and Diu) Rules, 1973 contain no stipulation in respect of withholding of Form-C on the ground of arrears unlike the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957 wherein it is so specifically provided. Mr. Sridharan submitted that since the ground of arrears is omitted explicitly from the Daman Rules, 1973, the action of the Respondents in withholding Form-C on this ground is illegal. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhru Automobiles v. State of Gujarat Spl. Civil Application No.17919/2018 decided on 7 February 2019; the decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dawar Brothers v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1979 44 STC 286 MP; judgment of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Officers are rendered powerless to withhold issuance of Form-C. Mr.Deshmukh relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn.Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 470 to stress upon the maxim that a person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Mr.Deshmukh also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Mclloyd & Co. v. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 16587 and in the case of Rajiv Yashwant Bhale v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 401 ITR 408 : (2017) 299 CTR 225, where in identical circumstances, the Court has declined to exercise its equity jurisdiction. 11. The concept of Form-C as a declaration is envisaged in section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, more particularly subsection (4) thereof. Section 8(4) reads thus: "8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the presc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent- Authorities submitting a proposal. The proposal reads thus: " ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... Proposal However, considering its responsibility to honour the tax liability, we intend to make the payment of the tax arrears in installments proposed as under:- i) Rs. 10,00,000/- payable immediately on receipt of an approval from your office; ii) Rs. 30,00,000/- per quarter till the disposal of the order by 2nd appellant authority. iii) Excess amount if any, paid till the disposal of the order should be credited to our account." The Petitioners stated that they would pay the installment of Rs. 10 lakh first and thereafter installments of Rs. 30 lakh per quarter till the disposal of the order. On 8 May 2018, by the order passed by Respondent No.3, the request of the Petitioners for installments was accepted. However, the Petitioners were directed to pay the dues in installments of Rs. 50 lakh each per quarter. Petitioners accepted this order. The Petitioners paid one installment of Rs. 50 lakh and stopped making further payments. The Petitioners now contend that non-deposit of this amount would not dis-entitle the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 were not fulfilled. The learned Single Judge, after analyzing the provisions of the Act and Rules found that once the registered dealer obtains certificate authorizing him to purchase the goods, then he is entitled to get Form-C. The fact that Form-C will be misused in future cannot be a ground for non-issuance of Form-C. The learned single Judge also gave an example that if a licence is given to any person to obtain any medicine, the fact that the medicine will be misused will not be a ground for denying the medicine. Therefore, the learned single Judge found that on facts, the petitioner therein had satisfied the provision of section 8(4) of the Act. The question regarding equity jurisdiction and arrears in respect of Form-C did not arise for consideration of the learned single Judge. In the case of Chanda Paints (Madras) Ltd., the Madras High Court was considering the question whether the authorities could refuse to supply Form-C on the apprehension that the material brought by the petitioner would be mis-utilized and not for the purpose stated. The learned single Judge opined that if the assessee misuses Form-C,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not comply with the directions of the Tribunal nor did the petitioner challenge it. Thereafter on 15th March, 2017 an order was passed by the First Appellate Authority confirming the assessment order dated 30th March, 2013. The same has now been challenged before the Tribunal and the stay of the First Appellate order (which upheld the order in original) is sought by the petitioner. This without any explanation, as to why the petitioner did not comply with the earlier orders of the Tribunal in respect of stay of the assessment order passed by the Tribunal. It must be appreciated that the order of the Tribunal passed under the Act, has sanctity attached to it. It must be followed unless stayed by a higher forum. The proceedings before the Tribunal are not to be initiated for time pass and with no intent to comply with the same, if not convenient. In these circumstances the view taken by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In these facts, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles it to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In the case of Rajiv Yashwant Bha....