- (1.)This intra-court appeal has been filed by the State-appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.06.2011 as passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.165/2011.
(2.)The respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioner', was denied supply of Form-F required for making declaration in respect of inter-State transfer of the taxable goods from one State to another State when the incidence does not come within the sweep of the inter-State sale. The requisition as made by the writ petitioner for supply of Form-F as prescribed by Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules,1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Rules,1957', for furnishing declaration as envisaged in Section 6A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act,1956', for movement of the goods to the other State/s.
(3.)The genesis of the writ petition is rooted in the communication dated 27.11.2010, Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition, whereby the writ petitioner was informed that her firm was not entitled to get Form-F under the provision of the CST Act,1956 and Rules made thereunder as the writ petitioner or her principal had not obtained certificate of registration separately under Section 7(2) of the CST Act,1956 read with Rule 4(2) of the CST Rules,1957. It was further stated in the communication that there was no bar to issue other statutory permits under the TVAT Act,2004 or the CST Act,1956 except Form-F for exigency of the business of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had filed a revision petition under Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TVAT Act, 2004') and before disposal of the said revision petition, this court was approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the said action. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner made an undertaking that they would not press that revision petition in view that the redress could not be availed qua the revision as the subject matter was primarily related to interpretation of the provision of Section 6A of the CST Act,1956. Even though no reason can be availed in the communication for refusal to issue Form-F for exigency of the business of the writ petitioner but from the affidavit-in opposition as filed by the Revenue in the Misc. application, which was adopted by the Revenue in the writ petition as their reply, some premises for the impugned action can be located. For appreciation, Para No.6.5 of the said affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced hereunder : "6.5. That it reveals from the Clause No.1 of the agreement made between the petitioner and outside State dealer (as per Annexure-P/1, Page 15-16 of the writ petition and office records) clearly show that this agreement is made to evade taxes due under CST Act, 1956 against the inter-State sale and to evade taxes under TVAT Act,2004. Clause-1 read thus- "Order will be delivered F.O.R. Agartala on receipt of the full value in advance and "F Forms". Which indicates that this agreement is nothing but to evade the payment of due tax under the CST Act, 1956 against the inter-state sale and thereby, to evade the TVAT. It also reveals that earlier the petitioner obtained Form "F" by submitting false declaration. From the reading of the agreement it is clear that the petitioner and the so called Principal entered into agreement is to sell and buy goods with money consideration. As per this agreement the petitioner agreed to import goods from that dealer to sell the taxable goods in the State of Tripura. For this reason, the petitioner is only entitled to Form 'C' or other statutory permit in Form XXIV or XXVI but in no way he is entitled to get issued Form "F", which is being issued for the purpose of stock transfer from one registered branch to another registered branch situated outside the State of a dealer. But in the instant case, the petitioner has no branch outside the State nor is his Principal registered under the TVAT Act, 2004 and CST Act,1956 in the State of Tripura. Hence claim for Form "F" by the Principal/Principals is beyond the statute."