AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government Pleader Ms. Pooja Ashar for the respondents. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pooja Ashar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 19.10.2023 as well as order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (For Short "the Tribunal") under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (For Short "GVAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the same, the Assessment Order was passed on 22.03.2017 confirming tax of Rs. 2,26,91,423/- along with interest of Rs. 1,63,37,825/- and penalty of Rs. 45,38,285/-. 5.3. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, first appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority under the provisions of Section 73 of the Act. During the course of proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner was permitted to produce additional Form F to the tune of Rs. 17,76,59,406/-. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.01.2023 partly allowed the appeal and dropped the demand in proportion to the turnover of Rs. 17,76,59,406 /-. For the remaining transactions for which Form F were not secured b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k transfer. The delay in obtaining Form F from the respective State Tax Officer does not negate the fact the stock transfer had taken place. It was further submitted that the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 expressly barred the consideration of any additional Form F. It was further directed to consider only those Form F that were submitted before the Tribunal. This unwarranted restriction has deprived the petitioner of its right to have benefit of non-taxable stock transfer. However, it was fairly submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi that the production of Form F which are still pending till today would not be contested in future and the petitioner has filed an affidavit to that effect. In view of the same, learned Senior Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it has been submitted by the authorities that only to the aspect of State of Rajasthan, waiver can be granted for Form F to the Tune of Rs.40,08, 250/-. 9. The only issue is the production of Form 'F' on piecemeal basis. The petitioner has produced certain Form 'F' before the Tribunal and certain portion of Form 'F' is produced before this Court. The petitioner has assured that the claim of the amount of Form F which are not produced would not be contested by the petitioner in future. The petitioner in his additional affidavit dated 07.04.2025 has made categorical averments which reads as under:- "2. That the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order dated 19.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as made a categorical statement which reads as under:- 2. I say and submit that I am filing this further affidavit in reply with a view to bring on record the attempts made on our part as to verify the F-Form submitted in us by the present petitioner. that out of all the F-Forms submitted by the petitioner, only the forms pertaining to the States of Haryana and Rajasthan were required to be verified. Vide affidavit dated 10.09.2025, the deponent, in paragraph 5, stated that the F-Form of Rajasthan was issued on 15.10.2013 and was valid for two years from the date of issuance, and therefore the same could not be verified. Insofar as the F-Form of Haryana is concerned, the same has been verified, and a copy of the status report of su....