TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 12(11) of the rules was not complied with and taxing the transaction and the Tribunal was wholly justified in setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Special Civil Application No. 21466 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2018 - Ms. HARSHA DEVANI AND Mr. A. S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr.Chitan Dave, Assistant Government Pleader For The Respondent : Mr. A. J. Shaikh, Advocate ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.1.2016 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in Revision Application No.67 of 2015 as well as order dated 22.6.2016 passed by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.17 of 2016. The respondent, at the relevant time, was a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act as well as Central Sale Tax Act. Vide invoice No.623 dated 7.2.2007 the respondent sold iron and steel material worth ₹ 5,25,81,483/- to M/s Reliance Petroleum Limited, a unit of Specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority specified by the Central Government under subsection (6) of section 8 of the Act, duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold. Referring to sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules it was submitted that a declaration is required to be furnished in the prescribed Form I . It was submitted that such form is required to be countersigned and certified by the authority in the SEZ, whereas in the facts of the present case such requirement has not been satisfied. Under the circumstances, in the absence of valid Form I , the revisional authority was wholly justified in raising the demand. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Insofar as the subsequent order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal on the miscellaneous application is concerned, not submissions were advanced to assail the same. 4. Opposing the petition, Mr. A.J. Shaikh, learned advocate for the respondent invited the attention of the court to the provisions of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, to point out that prior to 7.6.2005, the sub-rule provided for Form I to be countersigned and cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with effect from 7/6/2005 and from that date onward, it does not enjoin upon the SEZ Authority that Form I needs countersigned and certified by the SEZ Authority. The procedure of producing Form I was simplified. The issuance of Form I has been continued by SEZ Authority and with mutual understanding the Form is now issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and hence the Form produced in the assessment was quite in order and it cannot be considered as defective. 7.. Before adverting to the merits of the impugned order, it may be germane to refer to the provisions of section 8 of the Act which bears the heading Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce , and to the extent the same is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: ( 1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be two per cent of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower: Provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developer of the special economic zone, if such registered dealer has been authorized to establish such unit or to develop, operate and maintain such special economic zone by the authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has sold goods to a unit in the special economic zone in Jamnagar. 9. Sub-section (8) of section 8 of the Act provides that the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7) would apply provided the dealer selling such goods furnishes to the prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (4) a declaration in the prescribed manner on the prescribed form obtained from the authority specified by the Central Government under sub-section (6) duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom such goods are sold. Such form is prescribed under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules. Sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, prior to its amendment with effect from 7.6.2005 read thus: ( 11) The dealer, selling goods in the course of inter- State trade or commerce to a registered dealer under subsection (6) or under sub-section (8) of section 8 or under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sake of convenience, and the requirement that the document (Form I) be countersigned by the authority specified by the Central Government authorizing the establishment of unit in the SEZ, has been done away with. Therefore, there is no longer any such requirement under the said sub-rule, nor can such requirement can be read into it. The fulcrum of the arguments of the petitioner is that Form I as submitted by the respondent does not meet with the requirements as the issuing authority is not the authority prescribed under the rules. As noticed hereinabove, sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rule after its amendment with effect from 7.6.2005, no longer refers to any specific authority as the issuing authority. 13. A perusal of copy of the Form I submitted by the respondent indicates that the same has been issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and the same is duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom such goods are sold as contemplated under section 8(8) of the Act. In view thereof, all the requirements as envisaged under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, stood satisfied. The Tribunal, in the impugned order has recorded thus: ( 14) The second dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
