The Tripura High Court has directed the Authority to communicate the mismatch in figures which has prevented the issuance of Form “C”.
The petitioner, Prayas Automation Pvt. Ltd. has prayed for a direction to the respondents authorities to issue “C” Form for the years 2007-08 to 2010-11 so that the petitioner can avail of the concessional rate of duty on the goods supplied from outside State.
The petitioner at the relevant time was a registered dealer in West Bengal. Since the petitioner was awarded a contract for execution of certain work for respondent, the Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation in Tripura, the petitioner and respondent appeared to have entered into an agreement which is manifested in Clause 13.2 that on the goods supplied by the petitioner directly to respondent, the respondent shall issue certificate of concessional rate of duty.
According to the petitioner, the goods supplied were in the course of interstate trade. The objections of the respondent No.4 for issuing “C” Form are completely invalid. As noted in the affidavit-in-reply, the main ground taken was that the petitioner was a registered dealer in the State of Tripura, which itself being somewhat of a strange ground, in any case, in fact the petitioner was not a registered dealer in the State of Tripura at the relevant time.
The expansion of the opposition of the respondent No.4 by its advocate through oral arguments, is also wholly unsustainable in law. The respondent No.4 does not hold the authority to decide the taxability of the sale in question. Whether the sale should invite concessional rate of duty or not is to be judged by the taxing authorities. It was perhaps because of this reason that the respondent itself had also approached the VAT department for issuance of “C” Forms.
From the reply filed by the State authorities, it emerges that such “C” Forms were not issued on account of anomaly in the valuations. As a State authority respondent No.4 ought to have conveyed this reason to the petitioner who could have either pointed out that there is no anomaly or reconcile the figures if it was possible. In the meantime, for want of “C” Forms the petitioner went on suffering duty at the higher rates.
The Assessing Officer in West Bengal who had jurisdiction over the petitioner could not postpone the assessments for the fear of the same getting time barred.
The division bench of Chief Justice, Akil Kureshi and Justices S.G.Chattopadhyay did not comment on the claim of the petitioner for concessional rate of duty on the sales in question, but issued some directions.
Firstly, the respondent authority shall communicate the mismatch in figures which has prevented the said respondent from issuing “C” Form so far to the petitioner as well as respondent simultaneously within a period of two weeks from today.
Secondly, upon receipt of such communication, the petitioner would have four weeks time thereafter to file a response to explain the discrepancy or to reconcile the figures.
Thirdly, the respondent authority thereupon shall issue “C” Forms in relation to the transactions in question to the extent legally justified. This exercise shall be completed within four months of the date of receipt of the clarification from the petitioner.
Fourthly, the court has not made any observations with respect to the rate of tax that the transaction would attract. It would be the assessing authority of the petitioner to go into that question if the same ever arises or if permissible in law, for the respondent authority to take into consideration.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment