P&H High Court Allows PSU's Claim For RD Sale Deduction, Says Benefit Cannot Be Denied Based On Stolen But Genuine ST-15 Forms
In a significant relief to a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside orders passed by the Assessing Authority and the Haryana Tax Tribunal disallowing Recurring Deposit sale deduction on the basis that the ST-15 forms furnished by purchasing dealers were stolen or not backed by renewed registration.
A bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal noted, "It is undisputed that forms were genuine though stolen. Had forms been forged or fabricated, the situation could be different. The petitioner had no source to verify genuineness of the certificates. Even otherwise it was not responsibility of the petitioner, as per statutory provisions, to verify genuineness of certificates. The petitioner was not party to theft. If petitioner is denied benefit of aforesaid forms, it would be punishment to petitioner without its fault."
The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging Rule 21(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 as well as the orders dated 30.06.1999 and 06.05.2005, by which its claim for deduction was rejected.
For Assessment Year 1993-94, the PSU declared RD sales of Rs. 6.37 crore and furnished ST-15 forms received from two purchasing dealers—M/s Shree Anand Enterprises and M/s Jagdamba Metals (P) Ltd.
The Assessing Authority rejected the forms on two grounds that the Registration of M/s Jagdamba Metals had expired on 31.03.1992 and was not renewed.
The ST-15 forms of M/s Shree Anand Enterprises were allegedly stolen forms and the Tribunal, in its order dated 06.05.2005, affirmed the rejection, holding that, the assessee could not claim RD deduction on the basis of stolen forms;
Being a PSU, it ought to have acted with greater vigilance, particularly after registration of an FIR regarding stolen forms in 1991.
Senior counsel for the petitioner Sandeep Goyal pointed out that for Assessment Year 1992-93, the Tribunal had accepted the ST-15 forms from the same dealers and allowed the assessee's claim, and the State had accepted and implemented that order.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the conceded position emerging from record is that issue involved herein was considered and adjudicated by Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1992-93. Appeal of assessee was allowed. The Department accepted order of Tribunal and duly implemented the same.
"There is no dispute with respect to sale of goods. The petitioner is a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking. There is neither allegation nor evidence to the effect that petitioner was either aware of factum of stolen forms or was part of theft committed by purchasing dealers," it added.
The bench pointed out that, "there is no provision in the Act mandating that deduction would not be available if ST-15 forms furnished by assessee are found to be stolen. The respondent is not disputing that forms submitted by petitioner were incorporating requisite information. These were duly signed by departmental authorities. Name of petitioner was duly incorporated in the forms."
Holding that the petitioner was not liable to pay tax on RD sales to the concerned dealers, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders.
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ambika Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG Haryana
Title: MMTC LTD. v. STATEOF HARYANAANDORS.