The petitioner, M/s Aman Auto is engaged in the sale and buy of all types of Moped and Spare parts and was a registered dealer under the “The Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 also because the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act 2005 (henceforth called as “The VAT Act, 2005). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already purchased certain goods on which the tax was paid, as such, when the transitory period came into play and at that time if the return was not filed as per the C.G. VAT Act, 2005 due to certain unavoidable reasons, the double taxation could not be levied. He would submit that in any case, the meagre penalty could have been imposed to the extent which is prescribed under the statute, however, the levy of interest and tax again cannot be made.
Mr Anumeh Shrivastava, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was being assessed regularly, however, in Case, the input tax rebate wasn't allowed on the stock held by him on 01.04.2006 on the bottom that Form-74 Stock Statement wasn't submitted on time. Consequently, on the idea of additional demand, interest was also levied under section 19(4)(a) which was eventually affirmed by the order dated 28.08.2010 gone by the revisional authority, which is under challenge. it's the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already purchased certain goods on which the tax was paid, as such, when the transitory period came into play and at that point, if the return wasn't filed as per the C.G. VAT Act, 2005 thanks to certain unavoidable reasons, the double taxation couldn't be levied.
Mr Shrivastava added that in any case, the meagre penalty could are imposed to the extent which is prescribed under the statute, however, the levy of interest and tax again can't be made. He further submits that the amount of your time that was prescribed for the transitory period is a directory in nature.
On the opposite hand, Mr Siddharth Patel, Counsel on behalf of the department contended that the very object of fixing the time limit is to bring an end to permit the new legislation to return into play. it's stated that after the transitory period, the finality of the claim can't be received if the deadline is diluted and shifting from old statute to new statute can't be made.
The division bench of justice Gautam Bhaduri held that Section 73(1) has used the word ‘shall’ with an extra phrase “within such period” meaning thereby deadline has been fixed and Rule 80 of C.G. VAT Act 2006 also used the words in the express language that “the registered dealer shall furnish a press release in Form-74 in respect of products, laid out in Schedule II within a stipulated time.
Therefore, the court held that the legislature has used the word ‘shall’ and hence it can't be interpreted by the Court that it might be directory in nature. The statute and condition of the VAT Act, therefore, are to be strictly complied with. Furthermore, claiming an input decrease would be within the nature of concession provided by the legislature on fulfilment of certain conditions. to satisfy the condition under the VAT Act and Rules, the dealer has got to follow a certain time-line as otherwise, to say the privilege the conditions can't be said to be fulfilled at the wish and can of the dealer.