9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that the invoices raised by the petitioners had been captured in the C Declaration Forms pertaining to the quarter where delivery of goods took place? (ii).Whether the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, committed an error of law in disallowing concessional rate of 2% on inter-State sales effected by the petitioners on a turnover of Rs. 16,22,19,255/- to M/s.Savex Computers Limited and on a turnover of Rs. 1,25,29,283/- to M/s.Karuna Management Services Private Limited, when in fact the substantive requirement of Section 8(1) read with Section 8(3) and 9 (4) of the CST Act, 1956, had been satisfied by the inter-State sales effected on the petitioners to M/s.Savex Computers Limited and M/s.Karuna Management Services Private Limited? (iii).Whether the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, without prejudice to the above, erred in brushing aside the statement namely Annexure L filed by the petitioners, which indicated that overlapping if any pertained only to a turnover of Rs. 6,62,95,215/- on inter-State sales to M/s.Savex Computers Limited, and a turnover of Rs. 20,44,660/- on inter-State sales to M/s.Karuna Management Services Private Limited resulting in the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has levied higher rate of tax @ 4% on the inter-state sale turnover of Rs. 17,47,48,538/- since they have filed defective C declaration forms. On appeal, the first appellate authority had confirmed the assessment made on the impugned turnover but reduced the higher levy of tax made from 12.5% to 4% with the observation that they were given sufficient time to obtain and produce revised declaration in C Forms but they failed to do so. In fact, the invoices mentioned in the C form declarations pertain to different quarters. If there are minor defects in the C Form submitted, the Assessing Officer should give reasonable opportunity to the dealer to rectify the defects. Admittedly, one declaration in C Forms can cover all transactions in one quarter, irrespective of total amount/ value of transaction during the quarter. If a transaction covers more than one quarter, separate C Form is required to be issued for each quarter. Rule 12(7) of the CST (R&T) rules 1957 clearly states that the declaration in Form C or Form F shall be furnished to the prescribed authority within 3 months after the end of the period to which the declarati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... answered." 5.Mr.Prasad, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/ Assessee submits that the Form 'C' Declarations, which had been submitted to claim a concessional rate of tax, ought to have been accepted, as substantive compliance had been made in terms of Section 8(1) read with Section 8(3) and 8(4) of the 1956 Act, as also with the provisions of Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules (RNT) Rules, 1957 (in short, the 1957 Rules). 5.1.In support of his submission, the learned counsel also relied upon Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 (in short, 'T.N.Rules'). 5.2.The sum and substance of Mr.Prasad's submission is that merely because Form 'C' Declarations reflected the sale transactions for the quarter in which delivery of goods had been made to the buyer, it could not form the basis for denying the benefit of concessional rate of tax to the petitioner/Assessee, if, otherwise, the transactions were genuine. 5.3.In other words, according to Mr.Prasad, the sales transaction captured in the Form 'C' Declaration, were co-relatable to the date of delivery as against, when the subject goods were despatched. 5.4. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer. 8.1.Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Authorities below, had committed an error in sustaining the view that the declaration Forms should have corroborated with the date of the despatch and not with the date of delivery of the subject goods. 8.2.In support of his submission, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of: Jubilant Life Sciences Limited Vs. Commissioner, Commercial taxes, (2014) 70 VST 296 (All). 8.3. Apart from the aforesaid, Mr.Prasad also submitted that the Tribunal did not advert to the ground advanced by the petitioner/Assessee, which is that, the purported defective Form C declarations obtained by it, were of a far lesser value, than that which was noticed by the Authorities below. Mr.Prasad in this behalf sought to bring to our attention, the fact that, so far as the Savex Computers is concerned, the interstate sales transactions were of a value of only Rs. 6,62,95,215/- as against Rs. 16,22,19,255/-, whereas, in so far as Karuna Management Services Private Limited was concerned, the value of the interstate sales transactions were Rs. 20,44,660/- as against Rs. 1,25,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the point of view of the date of delivery as against when they were despatched, cannot be the reason for rejecting the Form 'C' declarations. 13.1.The provisos to Rule 12(1) which have been taken recourse to, by the Authorities below cannot be read in a manner, which takes away the benefit, as provided in the Act i.e., Section 8 of the 1956 Act. This view, seems to have been adopted by the Department itself, as is evident, upon perusal of the contents of the Circular dated 20.10.2015, to which, we have made a reference above. 13.2. For the sake of convenience, we may extract hereunder, the entire Circular, as it was issued based on the difficulties faced by the dealers who carried out inter-state sale transaction: "1.Certain representations have been received in respect of declaration forms furnished by dealers towards inter-state sales/ consignment sales etc. being rejected by the assessing officers on the ground that the date of sale invoice doesn't agree with those mentioned in the declaration forms. It is pertinent to note here that the other state dealers-buyers/ consignees might have issued declaration forms for all the goods received by them in a quarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which we have made a reference above, ought not to come in the way of acceptance of declaration forms. A case in point is, when, goods are despatched on the last day of the last quarter of a financial year and, they are recorded by the buyer in his record, based on the date of delivery or receipt and declaration is issued accordingly. In such circumstance, could it be said that the seller would not be given the benefit of the Form C declaration. We think not. 14.1. The argument of Mr.Annamalai, that the circular is prospective cannot be accepted, as, in our view, the circular only clarifies the position, as it ought to obtain. The reason for the same, is, that the Rules cannot constrict the right which is, otherwise, available to an Assessee, under the substantive provisions of the Act. 15.The second and third provisos of Rule 12 (1) of the 1957 Rules, contemplate only two scenarios. The present case, presents, in a sense, a third scenario, which is not envisaged under the Rules. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Prasad, Rule 10 (2) of the T.N. Rules, permits an Assessee to file declaration forms, relating to a given year any time before the final assessment of the accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
