The State Of Ap,Rep.By Sr Before ... vs M/S.Alcol Wire Products P Ltd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5711 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

                                                AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO



 T.R.C.Nos.143 of 2001, 176 of 2001, 283 of 2001, 162 of 2002,
          202 of 2003 and T.REV.C.No.134 of 2009



COMMON JUDGMENT
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)


              Heard Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Government
Pleader for Commercial Taxes and Sri M.V.K.Murthy, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. T.R.C.Nos.283/2001, 143/2001, 202/2003, 162/2002

and 176/2001 are filed against the common order dt.28-03-2001 of

the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'Tribunal') in T.A.Nos.534/98, 535/98, 536/98, 537/98 and 538/98 holding in

favor of the respondent therein.

3. T.REV.C.No.134 of 2009 is filed by the Revenue

challenging the order dt.19-01-2009 passed by the Tribunal in

T.A.No.873 of 2008 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent

therein.

4. Since a common question of law arises for

consideration in all these revisions i.e. T.R.C.Nos.283/2001,

143/2001, 202/2003, 162/2002 and 176/2001 and

T.REV.C.No.134 of 2009, they are being disposed off by this

common order.

5. The issue which arises for consideration in these

revisions filed under Section 22 of the AP General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'GST Act') is whether the Revenue is entitled to

forfeit the excess tax collected but not remitted by the respective

respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act') invoking powers under the GST Act in the absence of a

specific provision under the CST Act providing for such forfeiture.

6. In the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, it

relied upon its own order in the case of M/s.Hindusthan Cables

[1] Limited Vs. State of AP and held:

a) there is no substantive provision for forfeiting sales tax under

the provisions of the CST Act and therefore the assessing authority cannot enforce forfeiture of Central Sales Tax under Section 9 (2)

of the CST Act and

b ) Revenue cannot invoke the provisions of GST Act in view of

specific provision made in Section 10 of the CST Act providing for punishment of imprisonment and fine in the case of unauthorized

collection of tax.

It held that the forfeiture of tax collections made by the respective respondents under the CST Act are without the authority of law and set aside the same.

7. The Revenue has filed the revisions against the

orders of the Tribunal contending that the respective respondents had collected excess taxes under the CST Act which they had not

remitted to the revenue; that under Section 30-C of the CST Act read with Section 9 (2) (a) of the CST Act, the assessing authority had a right to forfeit the same; that the orders of the Tribunal are

wrong in law; and are liable to be set aside.

8. At the time of hearing of these revisions, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes fairly stated that the

decision in M/s.Hindustan Cables' case (1 supra) relied upon by the Tribunal in the impugned orders was upheld by this Court in [2] State of AP Vs. Hindustan Cables Limited .

9. This Court in Hindustan Cables Limited's case (2 supra) has held that a provision for forfeiture of tax is a substantive provision and not a mere procedural prescription; CST Act

contains no provision authorizing forfeiture of excess tax collected but not remitted to the Revenue; and consequently no forfeiture

can be ordered by relying on the forfeiture provisions in the GST Act.

10. In view of the above decision, the Revisions filed by the Revenue, raising a plea to the contra, have to be rejected as

without any merit.

11. Accordingly the Revisions are dismissed. No costs.

____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

___________________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date :21-02-2013 kvr

[1] 28 APSTJ 137 [2] 2013 (57) VST 284