Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
1. Revenue claims to be aggrieved by order dated 11th May, 2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi remitting the matter to the VATO to verify the ''C'' & ''F'' Forms which were produced during the course of the appellate proceedings and grant relief to the dealer if the forms are found to be in order. It was argued by learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal''s view is erroneous having regard to the provision of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act which after amendment of 2005 has a different effect. Learned counsel highlighted that the dealer in this case had not approached the prescribed authority within the time, nor even sought extension permitted under law.
2. The Tribunal relied upon a decision i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd., 1994(94) STC 410 (SC). It was argued that the Supreme Court construed the un-amended Section 8(4) which justified a benevolent interpretation. After the amendment, the proviso to Section 8(4) requires the submission of the declaration within the prescribed time. Learned counsel for the revenue also relied upon Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Act (Registration & Turnover Rules, 1957) and stated that satisfaction is that of the prescribed authority. In response, the counsel for the assessee sought to point out that the forms were initially produced before the VATO, but without application for extension which invited rejection. The assessee''s submission, however, is that necessary application had in fact been filed. In this circumstance, the question is whether the view of the Tribunal that the assessing authority had to consider whether the forms were admissible after taking into consideration the material on the record as on that date, is correct.
3. There can be no doubt in the year 2005, the Parliament amended Section 8(4), and correspondently a period of three months were prescribed. The assessee had, in fact, furnished the application along with ''C'' form as required by law. Having regard to the facts and nature of the forms, as enquiry had to be done by the VATO which was rightly directed by the Tribunal. This Court finds no merit in the appeal is consequently dismissed.
