- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12005 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. PATEL CHANDRAPPA AND SONS HOSDURGA (TQ) REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR, H.C.NAGARAJAPPA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANMATHI E I.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LVO-480, CHITRADURGA PRESENTLY, KNOWN AS LGSTO-48, CHITRADUGA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, GANDINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 FO THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 9(2) OF CST ACT READ WITH SECTION 39(1) OF KVAT ACT-2003 FOR PERIOD 2008-09 DATED 05.07.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LVO-480, CHITRADURAGA-ANNEXURE-A.COPY OF FORM VAT 180 DATED 05.07.2011 FOR PERIOD 2008-09 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LVO-480 CHITRADURGA-ANNEXURE A THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “ i) Copy of Assessment Order passed under Section 9(2) of CST Act read with Section 39(1) of KVAT Act -2003 for period 2008-09 dated 5/7/2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LVO-480, Chitradurga- Annexure-A ii) Copy of form VAT 180 dated 5/7/2011 for period 2008-09 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LVO-480 Chitradurga -Annexure-A-1 iii) Copy of Assessment Order passed under Section 9(2) of CST Act read with Section 39(1) of KVAT Act - 2003 for period 2009-10 dated 6/8/2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LVO-480, Chitradurga- Annexure-B iv) Copy of form VAT 180 dated 5/7/2011 for period 2009-10 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LVO-480 Chitradurga -Annexure-B-1 v) Copy of Endorsement issued 25/1/2023 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-480, Chitradurga bearing Commercial Tax/LGSTO- 480/Chitradurga/2022-23/T dated 25/1/2023 for period 2008- 09 Annexure-F.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner, did not submit the ‘C’ Forms in the first instance, but subsequently submitted the same along with rectification application on 10.03.2023 after a lapse of more than 12 years, subsequent to the impugned order at Annexures-A, A1, B and B1 and the impugned endorsement at Annexure-F dated 25.01.2023. It is submitted that under identical circumstances, in the case of M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another – W.P.No.30/2022 dated 15.12.2022, this Court disposed of the petition by issuing certain directions. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Under identical circumstances, in M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another – W.P.No.30/2022 dated 15.12.2022, this Court by following the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Weir BDK Valves Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 Commercial Taxes and others (W.P.No.72328 and W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012), has held as under:] In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.7, Bengaluru the second respondent herein, under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in CAS No.278109022.02 for the year 2011-12; - ANNEXURE-A. b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the Endorsement order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.7, Bengaluru, the second respondent herein, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 2011-12; - ANNEXURE ‘D’ c. Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the statutory forms submitted by the petitioner till date and grant the benefit of concessional rate of tax and exemption to the extent of the forms submitted and pass orders in accordance with law; and d. And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not submit ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms during the course of assessment proceedings till respondent No.2 passed order dated 25.11.2014 for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Immediately upon securing and procuring the aforesaid ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms, the petitioner proposed and furnished the same on 13.07.2015 and sought for re-assessment and orally requested on that day and subsequently, for re-assessment of the petition based on the ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms. However, since the requests of the petitioner were not considered, the petitioners preferred a rectification application on 29.06.2020, which was rejected vide order dated 06.07.2020. The said order was confirmed by the first appellate authority on 25.08.2020 as well as by the Tribunal and second Appellate Authority on 29.03.2021, as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3.1 In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the Circular dated 07.06.2006 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in order to point out that the ‘C’ and ‘F’ Forms produced after completion of the assessment can be considered and looked into for the purpose of reopening of assessment by the respondents. 3.2 It is also submitted that the said circular was recognised and affirmed by this Court in the case of Weir - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 BDK Valves Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others (W.P.No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012). It is therefore submitted that necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to consider ‘C’ and ‘F’ Forms filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 07.06.2006, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a Circular, whereby it was directed that belated submissions of ‘C’ and ‘F’ Forms, which were submitted even after completion of assessment proceedings can be looked into for the purpose of reopening of assessment. In this context, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Weir BDK Valves’ case supra, held as under: ‘9. The returns filed by the BDK Engineering Industries Limited for the assessment year 2008-09 in respect of cach quarter was taken up for verification. In the meantime, the said BDK Engineering Industries was taken over by the petitioner-company. The notice was issued to the petitioner to produce the necessary account books, tax invoices, sale bills, declarations and certificates. In pursuance of the said notice, some of the ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms were produced and sought for some more time to collect the balance C Forms from their customers. On the basis of the ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 furnished by the petitioner, preassessment notice was issued under Section 9(2) of CST Act read with 15 Sections 35, 36 and 72(2) of KVAT on 26-03-2011 calling upon the petitioner to file their objections to the pre- assessment notice. However, the petitioner failed to file their objections though time was granted. In view of that the Assessing Authority passed by the assessment order on 25-05-2011 and issued demand notices. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of the assessment order under Section 69 of KVAT Act contending that the assessment order and imposing interest and penalty is contrary to law. In response to the said application seeking for rectification of the assessment order, an endorsement was issued on 3-7- 2011 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the authorities within a period of 7 days with supporting documents. In spite of giving opportunity, no documents were produced, accordingly, the rectification application was rejected by the Assessing Authority on 27-07-2011. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had produced some more ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms covering taxable turnover of more Rs.4,80,00,000/- and odd. The main grievance of the petitioner is that within four months of acquisition of business of 16 the BDK Engineering, the assessment proceedings was taken place. He has to get the ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms from their customers, which consumes some more time. In spite of the request made by the petitioner for extension of time, the Assessing Authority has not considered the same. Hence, he relied upon the Circular No.9/2006-07 dated 7-6-2006 issued by the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, wherein the clause (e) and (f) read thus: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 (e) If the required statutory forms are not filed or not fully filed within 3 months from the end of the quarter to which such returns relate or till further extended time, if any, then the assessing authorities shall proceed to assess the dealer rejecting the claim of concessional rate of tax/exemption, after issuing the proposition notice and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the dealer in this regard, without, however, calling for books of accounts. (f) If the statutory forms are filed subsequent to completion of assessment as per sub-para (e) above, then the assessing authorities should consider the same by re- opening the assessments U/s 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 39 of the KVAT Act. This power should be exercised only for this limited purpose. In this regard, the attention of the officers are drawn to the observations made by the 17 Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V/s Arulmurugan and Company 51 STC 381 as under: “………. Where the assessing authority is satisfied, in a given case, about the existence of sufficient cause, it must necessarily be followed up by appropriate action, such as reopening the assessment already completed. Perhaps the requisite corrective action can be taken by invoking the assessing authority’s statutory power of rectification of mistakes. Even otherwise, the implementation, in appropriate cases, of, the power to allow further time cannot be withheld on the excuse that there is no express provision either in the statute or in the statutory rules for reopening the assessment. When the power is there and the facts are there demanding its exercise, the implementation must be done as a matter of course, on the doctrine of implied or ancillary powers.” Further, he also relied upon Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Taxes (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957 and contended that the declaration Forms can be filed at - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 subsequent point of time and not necessarily along with the returns. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AMBUJA CEMENT LIMITED case referred to above. Relevant portion of paragraph 40 of the said judgment reads as under: “It is to be noted that under rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957 (in short, “the 18 Registration Rules”) the declaration form can be filed at a subsequent point of time and not necessarily along with returns. On an application being made before the assessing officer the extension can be granted. The object of the Rule is to ensure that the assessee is not denied a benefit which is available to it under law on a technical plea. The assessing officer is empowered to grant time. That means that the provisions requiring filing of declaration forms along with the return is a directory provision and not a mandatory provision. In a given case even the declaration forms can be filed before the appellate authority as an appeal is continuation of the assessment proceedings. In a given case, if the appellate authority is satisfied that assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause which disenabled him to file the forms in time, it can be accepted. It can also be accepted as additional evidence in support of the claim for deduction.” 10. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner fully supports the case of the petitioner. The assessment for the year 2008-09 was taken up by the Assessing Authority after issuing notice. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner could not collect the entire statutory ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms and requested some more time to produce the same. However, the Assessing Authority proceeded 19 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 to issue pre-assessment notice and thereafter passed the assessment order. In the returns itself, the petitioner had claimed refund of a sum of Rs.3,56,15,297/-. The opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to produce the ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms. The benefit available under the law cannot be denied on technical ground. The transaction is inter-state transaction. On production of statutory forms issued by the competent authorities, the petitioner is entitled to pay the lesser tax. In the instant case, for non-production of statutory forms, the Assessing Authority levied a higher rate of tax on the turnover, for which, the statutory forms were not produced. Even on belated production of statutory forms, the statutory authority is bound to take into consideration the same and give the benefit of reduction of the tax. The circular dated 7-6-2006 issued by the Commissioner makes it clear that the Assessing Authority should consider the statutory forms which were produced belatedly i.e. subsequent to the completion of the 20 assessment by reopening the assessment. Further, Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules also provide for the same. The statutory forms can also be filed before the First Appellate Authority. In the instant case, the First Appellate Authority without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The First Appellate Authority has not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. In view of that, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be considered by the Assessing Authority by reopening the same only to the limited extent to look into the statutory forms produced by the petitioner. If one more opportunity is - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 given to the petitioner, it will not cause any hardship to the respondents. Apart from that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the amount claimed by the respondents. Hence, I am of the view that in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, the assessment order dated 25-05-2011, subsequent demand notices and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are required to be quashed. 21 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petitions are allowed. The assessment order dated 25- 05-2011, the demand notices and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the same afresh taking into consideration the statutory forms produced by the petitioner. The amount paid in pursuance of the demand notice issued by the respondents shall be refunded or adjusted only after the assessment order is passed.” 6. In view of the aforesaid Circular dated 07.06.2006 which was recognised and confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Weir BDK Valves’ case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents are to be directed to consider the request of the petitioner after taking into account ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms filed by him on 13.07.2015 and proceed further in accordance with law. 7. In the result, I pass the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of. (ii) The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for reopening of the assessment by taking into account and considering ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms submitted by him on 13.07.2015 bearing in mind the Circular dated 07.06.2006 and the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Weir BDK Valves Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others (W.P.No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012), in accordance with law. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc., before the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.” 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the judgment of this Court referred to supra, the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Court in the case of M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Commercial - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:18006 WP No. 12005 of 2025 Taxes and another – W.P.No.30/2022 dated 15.12.2022. ii. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-F dated 25.01.2023 is hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for reopening of the assessment by taking into account and considering ‘C’ Forms submitted by him on 10.03.2023 and 05.12.2023 bearing in mind the Circular dated 07.06.2006 and the decision of this Court in M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another – W.P.No.30/2022 dated 15.12.2022. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc., before the respondents, who shall consider the same and proceed further, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35