TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition is allowed. - W.P. (C) No. 23389 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2011 - GOPALA GOWDA V. C.J. AND MAHAPATRAJ B.N. J. S.C. Lal, Senior Advocate, M/s. S. Lal, D. Das, S. Lal and M. Agrawal for the petitioner R.P. Kar, Standing Counsel, for the respondents JUDGMENT In the present writ petition though several reliefs have been prayed for, Mr. S. C. Lal, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has confined his argument to the following three reliefs: (i) To quash the impugned orders of provisional assessment dated April 20, 2011 passed under rule 12(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, (for short, the CST (O) Rules ) under annexure 3 series for the quarters March, June and September, 2010 and the demand raised thereunder; (ii) To quash the notice dated July 27, 2011 issued under annexure 5 in terms of section 51 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, the OVATAct ), for special mode of recovery of the tax demanded under annexure 3 series; and (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing opposite party No. 3, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Barbil Circle, Barbil, to consider the effect of filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply to the show-cause notice stating therein that C forms had not been collected and the same would be produced before the audit assessment is taken up. Opposite party No. 3 had rejected the petition dated April 20, 2011 and passed provisional assessment orders on the same day, i.e., April 20, 2011 under rule 12(1)(b) of the said Rules under annexure 3 series raising a tax demand of ₹ 1,29,59,491 for the quarters of the year 2010-11. Subsequent to the demand raised on the basis of the provisional assessment orders, opposite party No. 3 has issued notice (annexure 5) under section 51 of the OVAT Act for realization of the tax demanded under annexure 3 series. Hence, the present writ petition. Mr. S.C. Lal, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that due to non-supply of C declaration forms by opposite party No. 3 to TATA, who in turn was to give the same to the petitioner, the petitioner could not furnish the C forms. Thus, opposite party No. 3 was fully aware of the fact that he had not supplied C forms to TATA, as a result of which TATA was not able to supply the said forms to the petitioner. It is submitted that without giving sufficient o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that falls for consideration by this court is as to whether there was sufficient cause for permitting further time to the petitioner-dealer for furnishing the required declaration forms/certificates and opposite party No. 3 is not justified in passing the provisional orders of assessment dated April 20, 2011 under annexure 3 series. To deal with the above question, it is necessary to know what is contemplated in sub-rule (7) of rule 12 of the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and rule 7A(1) and rule 12(1)(b) of the CST (O) Rules, 1957. The relevant portions of the above provisions are quoted below: CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 12. (7) The declaration in form C or form F or the certificate in form EI or form EII shall be furnished to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration or the certificate relates: Provided that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the aforesaid time, that authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 before opposite party No. 3. The petitioner did not submit the declaration form C within the time stipulated in rule 12(7) of the CST (R T) Rules and rule 7A of the CST (O) Rules. On receiving three returns, opposite party No. 3 sent three notices in form IIB dated March 11, 2011 for the said three quarters, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the wanting declaration forms/certificates by April 11, 2011. On April 11, 2011, the petitioner sought for an adjournment for submitting the wanting declaration forms and time was allowed till April 17, 2011. Again the time was allowed till April 20, 2011. On April 20, 2011, the representative of the petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice along with a time petition. In the said show-cause reply, the representative of the petitioner specifically stated that the C forms had not been collected and the same will be produced before him without fail prior to taking up the audit assessment. The said petition dated April 20, 2011 was rejected by opposite party No. 3. According to the petitioner, though there were sufficient cause for not furnishing the declaration forms/certificates within the time provided under rule 12(7) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent at this distance of time. Indeed at the relevant time there was no period of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act to prefer a claim before the Commission but that does not mean that the claim could be made even after unreasonably long delay. The Commission has rejected this contention by a wholly wrong approach in taking into consideration that foreign exchange payable to Reserve Bank of India was still due and, therefore, the claim is alive. The claim of the respondent is from the bank. At any rate, as stated earlier, when the claim was made for indemnifying the losses suffered from the Corporation, it was clear to the parties about the futility of awaiting any longer for collecting such amounts from the foreign bank. In those circumstances, the claim, if at all it was to be made, ought to have been made within a reasonable time thereafter. What is reasonable time to lay a claim depends upon facts of each case. In the legislative wisdom, three years period has been prescribed as the reasonable time under the Limitation Act to lay a claim for money. We think, that period should be the appropriate standard adopted for computing reasonable time to raise a claim in a mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the jurisdiction of opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 3 was fully aware of the fact that he had not supplied C declaration forms to TATA. Therefore, TATA was not able to supply the declaration forms to the petitioner till the provisional assessment order was made. Opposite party No. 3 had issued C forms to TATA on July 2, 2011 and in turn TATA had handed over the said C forms to the petitioner covering the transactions of subsequent sale under section 6(2) for which returns were filed by the petitioner. The petitioner in turn had submitted the said C forms before opposite party No. 3 on July 16, 2011. The said fact has not been disputed by Mr. Kar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Thus, the petitioner has submitted all the C forms as pointed out by opposite party No. 3 in the notice in form IIB under annexure 1 series after receiving the declaration C forms from TATA. In the above peculiar circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient cause for the petitioner for not furnishing the declaration forms within the time provided under rule 12(7) of the CST (R T) Rules and rule 7A of the CST (O) Rules and by the time the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
