Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Value Added Tax vs Rajendra Kirpal And Company on 25 July, 2012
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 25.07.2012
+ STA 50/2012
Commissioner of Value Added Tax. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.A.K.Babbar, Govt. Counsel
versus
Rajendra Kirpal & Company ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Jain & Mr.Virag Tiwari,
Advocates
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. Revenue claims to be aggrieved by order dated 11th May, 2011 passed by
the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi remitting the matter to the VATO
to verify the 'C' & 'F' Forms which were produced during the course of the
appellate proceedings and grant relief to the dealer if the forms are found to be in
order.
2. It was argued by learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal's view
is erroneous having regard to the provision of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales
Tax Act which after amendment of 2005 has a different effect. Learned counsel
highlighted that the dealer in this case had not approached the prescribed authority
within the time, nor even sought extension permitted under law.
3. The Tribunal relied upon a decision i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh v.
STA 50/2012 Page 1
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd., 1994(94) STC 410 (SC). It was
argued that the Supreme Court construed the un-amended Section 8(4) which
justified a benevolent interpretation. After the amendment, the proviso to Section
8(4) requires the submission of the declaration within the prescribed time. Learned
counsel for the revenue also relied upon Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Act
(Registration & Turnover Rules, 1957) and stated that satisfaction is that of the
prescribed authority. In response, the counsel for the assessee sought to point out
that the forms were initially produced before the VATO, but without application
for extension which invited rejection. The assessee's submission, however, is that
necessary application had in fact been filed. In this circumstance, the question is
whether the view of the Tribunal that the assessing authority had to consider
whether the forms were admissible after taking into consideration the material on
the record as on that date, is correct.
4. There can be no doubt in the year 2005, the Parliament amended Section
8(4), and correspondently a period of three months were prescribed. The assessee
had, in fact, furnished the application along with 'C' form as required by law.
Having regard to the facts and nature of the forms, as enquiry had to be done by
the VATO which was rightly directed by the Tribunal.
5. This Court finds no merit in the appeal is consequently dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.V.EASWAR, J
JULY 25, 2012
vk
STA 50/2012 Page 2
