Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 366 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefusal to reopen the Assessment Order - rejection of declarations in Form ‘C’ which were obtained by it in the year 2020 - time limitation - power to reopen the proceedings after lapse of four years - no ‘sufficient cause’ has been made out by the petitioner to explain the delay in filing declarations in Form ‘C’ - Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - HELD THAT:- The declaration in Form ‘C’ or Form ‘F’ or the certificate in Form ‘E-1’ or Form ‘E-II’ under the AP VAT Act is to be filed within the time frame as envisaged in Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 - A perusal of the said Rule shows that the assessee is required to furnish the declaration in Form ‘C’ or ‘F’ or ‘E-1’ or ‘E-II’ within three months after the end of the period for which declaration or the certificate relates, i.e., the Assessment Year. Proviso to the Rule, however, empowers the prescribed authority to permit such declarations/certificates beyond the aforesaid time provided ‘sufficient cause’ to the satisfaction of the authority is shown. In the present case, there is hardly any explanation offered with regard to the circumstances which stood in the way of the petitioner/assessee to submit declarations in Form ‘C’ within the stipulated time. A vague averment has been made that the business had closed down. However, no material particulars are placed on record with regard to the date of such closure. It is argued that the declarations in Form ‘C’ are genuine and there was delay as the forms had to be obtained from the business entities beyond the State. However, no contemporaneous documents are placed on record to support the claim that efforts had been made on the part of the petitioner to obtain declarations in Form ‘C’ from such business entities - While deserving cases of unintentional delay ought to be condoned, law cannot be permitted to be misused at the hands of an indolent litigant by mechanically condoning delay without valid justification. Thus, no ‘sufficient cause’ has been made out by the petitioner to explain the delay in filing declarations in Form ‘C’ - no case for directing to reopen the assessment is made out - petition dismissed.
|