Tata Motors Limited vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal, senior advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned standing counsel. Brief facts of the revisionist''s case are that the revisionist is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Delhi. The revisionist is manufacturing motor vehicles/ motor chassis at its factory situate at Chinhat, Deva Road, Lucknow. The motor vehicles are taxable at single point at the point of sale to consumer. For the assessment year 2007-08 (Central), the assessment proceedings against the revisionist were in progress in the months of December, 2010 and January, 2011. In respect of the stock transfers made by the revisionist-company to its branch office and consignment agents located outside the State of U. P. form F are required to be given u/s 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The forms F are obtained from respective branch offices/consignment agents and forms C are obtained from the purchasers located outside the State of U. P. from their assessing authorities situated outside the State of U. P. and then handed over to the revisionist for furnishing to its assessing authority within the State of U. P. In reality, it is very difficult for the branch offices/consignment agents/purchasers situated outside the State of U. P. to obtain and furnish forms C and forms F within the time stipulated in rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 to enable the revisionist to hand them over to its assessing authority.

In this respect, the Commissioner of Trade Tax vide circular No. 873, dated August 26, 2000 and circular dated November 25, 2009, has specifically directed the assessing authorities concerned to extend the time for filing forms if there are reasonable grounds for failure to file them within time. As the revisionist had not received various forms C from its outside State purchases and forms F from its branch offices/consignment agents within time of three months as contemplated in rule 12(7) of the Rules. Owing to non-supply of these forms to the revisionist, the revisionist was unable to submit them within time to the assessing authority in terms of rule 12(7) as stated above.

For the assessment year 2007-08 (Central), an assessment order was passed on January 28, 2011. During the period under review, the revisionist made stock transfer/consignment sales outside the State of U. P. The revisionist also transferred goods to its Engineering Research Centre situated at Lucknow for captive consumption. The revisionist produced 296 forms F (in original) covering stock transfer/consignment and produced photocopies. The revisionist declined to accept these nine forms F on the ground of delay of one month and were therefore invalid. The assessing authority also found that no forms F had been filed by the revisionist in respect of sales worth Rs. 1,58,20,276. The sales of the aforesaid amount were treated as Central sales in the assessment order. The assessing authority also rejected the forms C and forms F filed by the revisionist against the Central sales and stock transfer/consignment sales made by the revisionist on the ground that the Central sales tax have been amended with effect from October 1, 2005 and the revisionist was required to file the aforesaid forms by the end of next quarter in respect of which forms were issued under rule 12(7) of the aforesaid Rules. The revisionist filed an application for extension of time for submission of balance forms F and C and proof of export for quarter-IV 2007-08 on January 12, 2011.

Admittedly, since the form C and form F were not filed within the time, hence an application was filed but the assessing authority after recording a finding that no time was obtained by the applicant for filing form C and form F when such an application was filed on January 12, 2011, which is on record. In the case of Dhan Prakash Cane Crusher v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2002] 128 STC 654 (All); [20021 UPTC 634, this court has specifically held that statutory forms can be filed in appeal also which could not be furnished before the assessing authority and accordingly, the matter was remanded for reassessment after accepting the said forms. The assessing authority also rejected the request of the revisionist to submit the proof of export in respect of the sales made by the revisionist outside India to the countries of Nepal and Bangladesh and deemed them to be local sales. Accordingly, the assessing authority imposed a tax of Rs. 67,03,06,682 on the revisionist in his assessment order. Against the said levy, the revisionist had admitted a tax liability of Rs. 6,22,40,700 which already stood paid for the period January to March, 2008.

The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the said demand has been created solely due to the non-acceptance of forms C and F and proof of export by the revisionist without considering the application dated January 12, 2011, for exercising powers under the proviso of rule 12(7) of the Rules by the assessing authority to extend the time for furnishing of forms. Being aggrieved, the revisionist filed an appeal and the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), by the order dated February 28, 2011, granted stay of 50 per cent of the disputed amount of tax. As the revisionist has not satisfied with the order, he filed second appeal u/s 57 of the U. P. VAT Act. By the impugned order dated March 4, 2011, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal filed by the revisionist by granting 10 per cent further stay.

The revisionist''s contention is that even the Act and the Rules prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act provide that the forms can be filed beyond the prescribed time and if sufficient cause for not filing the same within time is established, the time can be stretched and the forms can be accepted by the assessing authority. Further, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, has time and again clarified that the time for filing the forms can be extended by the assessing authority and the forms can be accepted even if filed beyond the time prescribed under the Rules.

On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned standing counsel, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as the revisionist has not submitted the required forms well within the time.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated March 4, 2011, is modified to the extent that if the revisionist deposits 10 per cent of the total demanded tax for the assessment year 2007-08 latest by March 31, 2011, ninety percent of the demanded tax shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of appeal. The revisionist shall furnish security of the stayed amount within 30 days to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. It is further provided that the deposited amount shall not be adjusted against any other head. In view of the above, the trade tax revision is partly allowed. The first appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal, in accordance with law, latest by April 30, 2011.