Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal and Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned senior advocates, assisted by Sri Vaibhav Pandey for the applicant and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. The instant trade tax revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated April 28, 2014 passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench II, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 107/2014 for the assessment year 2010 -11, by which revisionist has been directed to deposit 20 per cent of the total amount for the year 2010 -11 and stayed 80 per cent of the VAT tax by allowing the appeal partly.
(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Delhi and the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing motor vehicles/motor chassis at its factory situate at Chinhat Deva Road, Lucknow. The applicant exports complete buses outside India. It manufactures chassis at Lucknow according to the specifications of the export order, gets bus assembled outside U.P. and dispatches the complete bus directly after assembly from the Mumbai port and also makes Central sales directly from Lucknow to various registered dealers of outside State of U.P. against stipulated form C under the Central Sales Tax Act. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that form F are obtained from respective branch offices and forms C are obtained from the purchasers located outside the State of U.P. from their assessing authorities situated outside the State of U.P. and then handed over to the applicant for furnishing to its assessing authority within the State of U.P. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Commissioner of Trade Tax vide circulars dated August 26, 2000 and November 25, 2009 has specifically directed the concerned assessing authorities to extend the time for filing forms if there are reasonable grounds for failure to file the same within time. It is again submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had not received various forms C from its outside State purchases and forms F from its branch offices/consignment agents within time of three months as contemplated in rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules and it kept following up with them regarding the supply of these forms. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the assessing authority has treated the transaction between the applicant and the persons by whom the bus body has been mounted to be a transaction exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and the assessing authority has also treated the office of the applicant at Mumbai to be a separate firm and the office of the applicant at Lucknow to be a separate firm. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the finding of the assessing authority is directly contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in : [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC) : [1985] 4 SCC 173, wherein it has been held that branch office and head office of the firm do not constitute separate legal entities and they are part and parcel of the same juristic entity. It is also submitted that vide assessment order dated February 28, 2014, for the assessment year 2010 -11 (Central) was passed and a demand of Rs. 65,98,09,496 created and out of this tax liability, the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 31,56,07,942, accordingly the balance tax liability was calculated at Rs. 34,42,08,554, which is treated to be an admitted tax payable by the applicant on which a further sum of Rs. 17,76,76,371 was payable as interest and the total outstanding amount comes to the tune of Rs. 52,18,77,925.
(3.) THE applicant aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Lucknow, along with an application for stay, who vide order dated April 22, 2014, has granted stay of 60 per cent of the disputed amount of tax. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the assessing authority as well as the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error of law in completely overlooking the fact that even if the forms have not been filled as contemplated under rule 12A(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, the said forms can be filed even after the assessment order has been completed.;