ABB India Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer

R. Subhash Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the 1st respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad Circle, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods and it also executes contract works. The petitioner, being an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent, has filed its returns in Form CSTVI for the assessment year 2010-11, reporting a turnover of Rs. 1,11,60,07,242/-. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the said entire turnover, a turnover of Rs. 97,89,17,554/- indicates transit sales of electrical goods, which are covered by ''C'' forms.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that in respect of the turnover of Rs. 16.26 crores, which is covered by ''C'' forms, it is entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax at the rate of 2%, but the assessing authority has levied tax at the rate of 14.5%. It is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that even if the turnover is not covered by ''E1'' forms, but covered by ''C'' forms, the benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short ''the Act'') can be given for such turnover. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Podisala Sivaiah Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, .

On instructions, it is submitted by the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes that if ''C'' forms of an assessee are not returned, such assessee is entitled for the benefit of concessional tax. He also submitted that the authorities have the power to return ''C'' forms by recording reasons.

So far as the turnover of Rs. 16.26 crores, which is covered by ''C'' forms but not covered by ''E1'' forms is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that ''C'' forms are not returned and the authorities have levied tax at the rate of 14.5% on such turnover, by denying the benefit of concessional rate of tax. In this view of the matter and in the light of the judgment referred supra, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the authorities. As regards the other turnovers, it is for the petitioner to question the same before the appropriate authority as contemplated under the Act.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside only to the extent of imposing tax of Rs. 2,35,81,361/- on the turnover of Rs. 16.26 crores, which is covered by ''C'' forms but not covered by ''E1'' forms, and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for re-consideration, basing on the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment referred supra, and passing appropriate orders as per law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is also made clear that if, for any reason, ''C'' forms are to be returned, the authorities shall do the same by passing a reasoned order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.