C Form issued at material Item cannot be cancelled Retrospectively: Delhi HC ruled in favour of Louis Dreyfus Company India [Read Order]

C Form - material Item - Retrospectively - Delhi High Court - Louis Dreyfus Company India - favour - Taxscan

The High Court (HC) of Delhi has held that C Form issued at the material time cannot be cancelled retrospectively.

M/s Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner has filed the petition to restore and validate the 4 cancelled Statutory Form C issued to the Petitioner and to declare all the other 9 Statutory Forms issued to the petitioner as Valid and the same is to be communicated to the Gujarat VAT department.

The issue was related to a transaction entered into in the year 2015-16, whereby the petitioner had supplied goods to certain dealers in Delhi, who was at the material time, registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( ‘CST Act’).

The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the CST Act as well as the Gujrat Value Added Tax  Act, 2003 in the State of Gujarat and had supplied goods (edible oil) at a concessional rate of sales tax at the rate of 2% against C-forms.  

The supplies were made against C-forms issued at the material time, the Gujarat VAT Department has denied the benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner on the ground that the said forms were cancelled by the Delhi VAT Authorities.  

It was evident that the respondent has not questioned the petitioner’s claim that it is a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt. Ltd,  a reputed company dealing in agri-based commodities, is engaged in the processing of edible oil and coffee. The petitioner has offices and operations in twenty-one States.

In Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr, it was held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. 

Based on the precedents a two-member bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that “there is no reason for denying the benefit of C-forms to the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petitioner had not supplied the goods in question.”   The petition filed by the petitioner was allowed.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

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

taxscan-loader