LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-279

ALLANASONS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 31, 2014
Allanasons Ltd. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, inter alia, carries on the business of export of frozen buffalo meat. The head office of the petitioner is in Mumbai, while it has a branch at Sahibabad in district Ghaziabad. According to the petitioner, its head office receives orders from foreign purchasers for the supply of frozen meat. The petitioner allegedly fulfils its export orders by purchasing the frozen meat from the State of Uttar Pradesh and dispatches the consignments to Mumbai through its branch at Sahibabad. The consignments are thereafter consolidated into containers for export out of India. The petitioner has stated that the entire transaction takes place against form H under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). For the assessment year 2009 -10, a notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division -15, Ghaziabad, calling for a disclosure of information. The notice, inter alia, informs the petitioner of the necessity of furnishing form F and draws the attention of the petitioner to the fact that it had not complied with the requirement thus far. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner moved the Sales Tax Officer (C -124) at the Central Repository in Mumbai on 13th June 2013 for issuance of form F. The petitioner was informed by a communication dated June 27, 2013 that form F could not be issued since form H in respect of certain transactions, as indicated in the letter, had already been issued.

(2.) THE relief which the petitioner now seeks even before the assessment can be completed is principally for restraining the assessing officer from deeming those sales in the course of exports which are duly covered by form H between the branch office at Sahibabad and the head office at Mumbai to be inter -State sales only on the ground of refusal of the Maharashtra VAT authorities to issue form F in respect of the transactions. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought to challenge the validity of section 6A of the Act.

(3.) SUB -sections (1) and (3) of section 5 of the Act provide as follows :