TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CST Act is perfectly justified - revision dismissed - decided against assessee. - O.T.Rev.No. 77 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2018 - MR. K. VINOD CHANDRAN J. PETITIONERS: BY ADVS. SRI.T.M. SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT. DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI. V.P. NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN ORDER Vinod Chandran,J. The assessee is in revision before this Court against the order of the Tribunal raising questions of law, which are re-framed as follows: (i) Has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in affirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer levying a higher tax on that portion of the inter-State sales wherein C-Forms were produced for part of the amount covering the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of Section 8, within the State. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal affirmed the same. The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on Prestolite of India Limited v. The State of Haryana and Others [(1988) 70 STC 198 (P H)] and Modern Proteins Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India [(1983) 52 STC 403 (AP)] to contend that the C-Forms can be produced at any stage during the assessment proceedings, which include the statutory appeals before the appellate authorities and also revision before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel also contends that the assessee has carried out inter-state sales of more than ₹ 187 crores, while the deferred payment, which is levied higher tax, is only 4% of the total turnover of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls or cash memo with the amount; being the sale consideration. Hence, only that portion of the bill amount as available in the C-Form could be levied with tax at the rates applicable under sub-section (1) of Section 8. 6. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel of the Punjab Haryana High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court are not relevant in the context of the assessee having not produced the C-Forms for the alleged deferred payment at any point before the AO or the appellate authorities or even before this Court. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that if time is granted, even now they would produce the C-Form. This is specifically prohibited by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kochi Refineries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act. Under such circumstances, the authorities should not have taken the strict view in rejecting the claim of the concessional rate of tax. At first sight, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be genuine and acceptable but considering the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Act and Rules, this Court is called upon to decide the questions involved in this case. The provisions being mandatory they should have been complied with. The appellant made no attempt to comply with Rule 12(3) till after his claim was rejected by the Assessing Authority. Having made no attempt to comply with the mandatory provisions, he disentitled himself from getting the concessional rate. Even otherwise, in our view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
