Case Law Details
Tvl. Arudra Engineering Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court addressed the issue of whether C-Forms submitted by Tvl. Arudra Engineering Private Limited could be considered non-genuine without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to prove their authenticity.
Background: An appellate order dated July 21, 2023, directed the assessing officer to grant a concession on the turnover covered by the C-Forms, contingent upon verifying their genuineness. Following this direction, the impugned order was issued.
Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner challenged the impugned order, arguing that it wrongfully concluded that the C-Forms were not genuine. They claimed that this conclusion was reached without providing them a chance to demonstrate the authenticity of the C-Forms.
Respondent’s Argument: The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent noted that the impugned order was issued based on instructions from the appellate authority to specifically assess the genuineness of the C-Forms.
Court’s Findings: The court observed that the notice issued on January 19, 2024, asking for additional documents did not specifically request the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the C-Forms. As a result, the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to establish the validity of the C-Forms.
Order: The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order dated April 15, 2024. The case was remanded for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner to submit a reply along with relevant documents within fifteen days of receiving the court’s order. The assessing officer must provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a new order within three months after receiving the petitioner’s reply.
Conclusion: The case emphasizes the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to prove the authenticity of documents before declaring them non-genuine. The petitioner’s right to a fair hearing was upheld, ensuring due process in verifying the genuineness of C-Forms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By an appellate order dated 21.07.2023, the assessing officer was directed to grant concession on the turnover covered by the C-Forms after verifying the genuineness thereof. The order impugned herein was issued pursuant thereto.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned order and submitted that the finding was recorded therein that the C-Forms submitted by the petitioner are not genuine. He further contends that such conclusion was recorded without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to establish the genuineness of the C-Forms concerned.
3. Mr. C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the impugned order was issued on the basis of directions from the appellate authority to specifically examine the genuineness of the C-Forms.
4. The impugned order was preceded by notice dated 19.01.2024 calling upon the dealer to submit documents listed therein. Such notice did not call upon the petitioner to establish the genuineness of the C-Forms. In those circumstances, the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to establish that the C-Forms were genuine. On this limited ground, the matter requires reconsideration.
5. Therefore, impugned order dated 15.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply and enclose relevant documents with regard to the C-Forms. Such reply shall be submitted within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reply and after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
6. W.P.No.18985 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.20836 and 20837 of 2024 are closed.
Author Bio
This takes me my memory of “C” Form date back in 1970-76.
This “C” Form those times sought from the Sales Tax Dept. They provide it to the business after their accounts are clear and all earlier C Forms are used.
Those times we used to negotiate documents through bank. One Condition we put is – to collect C Form from the party while releasing the documents against payment l.
But most of the cases clients not having V forms which is not issued to the party by the Sales Tax department.
The supplier suffer because CST against C-Form is lower but without C-Form is higher. The supplier suffer. Though we write Full tax should be charged if no C-Form. But the banks least bothered when retiring documents by their clients.
How can you doubt C-Form which is a Government property should surrendered if not used.
The only anomaly is filling the amount. Some say write full Invoice value. Others say only Amount before tax. But it is only a minor issue but the department unnecessarily poke it’s nose and reject C-Form.
How can they suspect a C-Form?