Belated filing of Form C declaration: Supreme Court issues notice in Revenue Special Leave Petition [Read Order]

A two judge bench of the Calcutta HC comprising Justice B.V. Nagarthna and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue.

This case pertains to filing of form C. To be entitled to concessional rate of tax filing of form C declaration is mandatory. However, the time limit prescribed for filing such declarations is directory and not mandatory and in the case on hand the Assessing Officer ( AO ) having accepted the form C declarations and considered the same, it is deemed that the assessing officer of IOCL was satisfied that there was sufficient cause which prevented the dealer from filing form C declaration within the time stipulated under the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

Revenue had denied tax refund to the assessee, BGR Mining and Infra Ltd. The purchasing dealer, who is the writ petitioner, has the legal standing to assert the claim for a refund of the excess tax directly collected from them, rendering the writ petition maintainable.

To qualify for the concessional tax rate, the mandatory filing of form C declaration is required. However, the specified time limit for submitting these declarations is considered directory and not mandatory. In the present case, since the Assessing Officer accepted and considered the form C declarations, it is presumed that the IOCL Assessing Officer was satisfied that there was a valid reason preventing the dealer from filing the form C declaration within the stipulated time under the Act and rules.

Revenue, having held that the rejection of the form C declarations was erroneous, unsustainable and illegal the assessment order to the said extent is set aside.

The assessee argued that he is entitled to the tax exemption as he had fulfilled the conditions in Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the form C declarations having been verified and found to be in order by the concerned authority of the State of West Bengal.

The bench observed that the State of West Bengal/ appellants are unjustified in refusing to refund the excess tax as it had been allowing concessional rate to the writ petitioners before and after the disputed period.

The bench further held “In the light of the conclusion which we have arrived at, the order and directions issued by the learned Single Bench stands affirmed and the appellants/State of West Bengal is directed to effect the refund of the excess tax collected directly to the writ petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order together with interest at the statutory rate as stipulated under the WBST Act, from 01.07.2020 that is the day after the date on which the assessment order in the case of IOCL was passed that is 30.06.2020 till the date on which refund is effected. If there is any discrepancy in the date, it is clarified that interest shall be payable from the next day after the date of the assessment order till the date of payment.”

The petitioner was represented by Pallav Shishodia, C.K. Sasi and Meena K Poulose. Revenue was represented by Vikramjit Bannerjee, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Arijit Prasad. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Ayush Anand, Siddharth Sinha, Shashank Bajpai, Ankita Anilkumar Singh and Deepak Kumar, Vijay Nand Tripathi

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates