SANGEETHA AGENCIES Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions though listed for preliminary hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties are finally heard and disposed of by this common order. Petitioner, a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for short 'C.S.T. Act' and the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short 'K.V.O.A. Act' filed a return for the tax period April 2005 to March 2006 declaring inter State trade, effecting sales against 'C Forms and claimed exemption by filing 'F Form in respect of stock transfer. The assessing Officer having noticed that sub -section (1) of Section 6A of the C.S.T. Act and Rule 12(5) of the C.S.T. Rules, 1957 required the petitioner to issue a single declaration which may cover transfer of goods to any other place of business or his agent or principal, as the case may be effected during a period of one month while Form 'F' submitted covered transactions for more than one month, accordingly declined to allow such stock transfer and treated the same as inter -State sales liable to tax at 10%, by the order dated 25.4 2013 Annexure -A, invoking Section 9(2) of the C.S.T. Act.

(2.) PETITIONER alleging that the assessing authority invoked sub -section (2) of Section 6A of the C.S.T. Act to reject 'F' Form and therefore, under Section 18A of the C.S.T. Act appeal lies to the highest Appellate Authority of the State, filed S.T.A. 1677 -88/13 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at Bangalore, whence by order dated 24.6.2013 Annexure -B -the appeal was rejected as not maintainable holding that the appeal was required to be filed under Section 62 of the K.V.A.T. Act, in the light of sub -section (2) of Section 9, as also sub -section (1) of Section 6A of the C.S.T. Act. Hence these petitions.

(3.) SECTION 6A(1) of the C.S.T. Act provides for a dealer who claims that he is not liable to pay tax under the C.S.T. Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business, or to his agent or principal, as the case may be and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned for the dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority within the prescribed time or within such further time as the authority may, for sufficient cause permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or agent or principal as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority along with the evidence of despatch of such goods and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then the movement. of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of the Act ought to have been occasioned as sale. Sub -section (2) empowers the Assessing Authority to make an order if he is satisfied after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by the dealer under sub -section (1) are true and that no inter -State sale has been effected, to the effect that movement of goods of which declaration relates was subject to the provisions of sub -section (3) which deemed for the purpose of the Act to, be occasioned as otherwise than result of sale.