Delhi High Court
R.H. Enterprises And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors. on 4 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 43(1991)DLT285, [1992]85STC251(DELHI)
Author: B.N. Kirpal
Bench: B.N. Kirpal
JUDGMENT B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) Rule D.B. (2) The prayer in the present writ petition is that respondents should issue Form 'F' to the petitioners under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.
(3) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. It receives goods on transfer, according to the petitioner, from his principal, who is outside Delhi. According to the provisions of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act the petitioner is obliged to furnish to his principal Form 'F' which would signify that he is receiving those goods on transfer. This Form 'F' is issued under Rule 4C of the Central Sales Tax Act (Delhi Rules), 1957.
(4) The petitioner had applied on 8th November, 1989 for the issuance of the said Forms to him. The Forms were not issued. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed and on 8th August, 1990 a show cause notice was issued by us. On 7th September, 1990 time was granted to the respondents to file the reply. Before the reply was filed Sales Tax Officer has passed an order dated 29th October, 1990 by which he required the petitioner to furnish security for Rs. 9 lacs under the Central Sales Tax Act. This order is subject matter of another writ petition. Before passing of this order on 16th October, 1990 9 'F' Forms were issued to the petitioner though the petitioner had requested for 34 'F' Forms. The petitioner has placed on record letter dated 9th October, 1990 whereby the Sales Tax Officer asked the petitioner to contact him on 16th October, 1990 for the issue of 'F' Forms.
(5) After the issue of the aforesaid 9 Forms, the dispute now is restricted to the balance 25 Forms asked for by the petitioner.
(6) It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has made local sales against fake S.T. I Form and there has been large amount of a local sales-tax which is outstanding against the petitioner. Reference is also made to the order now passed on 26th October, 1990 asking for Rs. 9 lacs by way of security.
(7) Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to bring to our notice any provision of the Central Sales Tax Act or Rules framed there under which in any way empowers the Sales Tax authority to refuse the issue of 'F' Forms. The Sales Tax authorities are concerned with the safeguarding of the revenue under the Act. The Central Sales Tax Act is distinct and separate from the Delhi Sales Tax Act. Merely because it is the officers appointed under the Delhi Sales Tax Act who administer the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act would not empower those officers to take recourse to the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act for the purpose of passing an order relating to the Central Sales Tax Act.
(8) As we read Section 6A and Rule 4C we do not find any power with the respondent to refuse to issue the Forms. Of course, the assessing officer is entitled to ask the petitioner to furnish security in terms of Sections 7(2A) and (3A.) This means that if a request is made by a dealer for the furnishing of a Form and there is any apprehension.in the mind of the assessing authority that there may be a possible misuse of the Form which may result in prejudice being caused to the revenue, then the dealer can be required to furnish security. The same has not been done in the instant case. For a period of over 11 months the application of the petitioner for 34 'F' Forms remained unattended. It is only when the present writ petition was filed that 9 such Forms were given to the petitioner. This delay seems to lend support to the allegation of the petitioner contained in the writ petition that the Sales Tax Officer concerned has acted in a vindictive manner and he has tried to harass and misuse his powers. 6 Forms were issued to the petitioner on 16th October, 1990 when no order under Section 7 had been passed. We see no reason as to why the petitioner should not have been furnished the balance 25 Forms also.
(9) We, therefor", allow this writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to furnish to the petitioner within one week from today 25 'F' Forms. We further direct that the said Forms shall be filled by the petitioner in the office of the Sales Tax Officer concerned. It is made clear that the Forms will not be refused because of the non-furnishing of the security by the petitioner.