INCOME TAX MATTERS ( A monthly journal on - Income tax and wealth tax- since 1999) - ( subscription for the year 2008 (TWO VOLUMES) is only Rs. 1100/-) - For subcription and to Know more click here

 

VAT (Value Added Tax)

 

Judgements relating to Value Added Tax

 

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - R.S. Cotton Mills Vs. The State of Punjab - Decided on 24.9.2008.

            Non submission of ‘C’ forms alongwith annual return should be viewed with respect to judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prestolite of Indian Limited to the effect that cognizance of Regarding pre‑deposit of 25% of the demand, the court held that till the appeal is decided, the impugned demand will not be enforced.

 

 

[IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH]

R.S. Cotton Mills
Vs.
The State of Punjab
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
                                    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
C.W.P. No. 12426 of 2008
Decided on 24.9.2008.

           

For the Petitioner        :     Mr. K.L. Goyal, Advocate
For the State               :     Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab       

ORDER

            This petition has been filed against the notice of demand under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”) read with Section 29(1) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005.

            Case of the petitioner is that it filed its returns for every quarters for the year 2005-06 and annual return was filed on 20.11.2006. In the said returns, claim was made for concessional rate of tax in respect of goods sold to registered dealers, against prescribed declaration in Form ‘C’ under Section 8(1) of the Act.

            The petitioner received a notice of demand on the ground that the requisite ‘C’ forms had not been filed in time. However, no notice received for framing of assessment.

            Grievance on behalf of the petitioner is that the ‘C’ forms had already been filed though the same were not filed alongwith the return. The genuineness of the said forms not being in dispute, there is no evasion of tax involved. Mere delay in filing of ‘C’ forms could be no ground not to act upon the same. The ‘C’ forms could be considered at the time of assessment which is yet to take place.

            Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon DB judgment of this Court in Prestolite of India Limited v. The State of Haryana and others (1988) 70 STC 198 to the effect that ‘C’ and ‘D’ forms could be filed even after the filing of return or at appellate stage and same could be taken cognizance of.

            Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for the delay in filing the forms ‘C’, explanation should have been given by the petitioner and the petitioner has remedy of appeal.

            Learned counsel for the petitioner says that alternative remedy was no bar to entertaining of writ petition where the order was patently illegal.

            The remedy available to the petitioner was not effective alternative remedy, as the petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the demand which was patently illegal. There was no provision for waiver of the said pre-deposit by the Appellate Authority.

            We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

            Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we direct that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within one month from today, the appellate authority will decided the matter in accordance with law after referring to the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. Till the appeal is decided, the impugned demand will not be enforced.

            The petition is disposed of.
—————————