IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(T) No. 6124 OF 2007
M/s. Bhawani Ferrous Private Limited Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Respondents
-------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Appellant/Petitioner M/s.M.S.Mittal, A.R.Choudhary
For the Respondent/Opp.Party Dr.S.N.Pathak
--------
8. 11.12.2008
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, M/s. Bhawani
Ferrous Private Limited, seeking a direction to the Railways represented by
respondent nos.10 to 14 to immediately issue the statutory form, being Form-IXC
in connection with purchase of iron and steel scrap of rails from South Eastern and
Eastern Railways on the ground that the petitioner although had deposited the
amount of sales tax with the South Eastern and Eastern Railways, they failed to
deposit the amount paid by way of sales tax with the Commercial Taxes
Department, Jharkhand, due to which the Commercial Taxes Department,
Jharkhand, had refused to issue Form-IXC. This form was essential for the
petitioner to explain its liability as to what were the goods on which the petitioner
was not liable to pay further sales tax.
The petitioner came up with the case that it had deposited the
required amount of sales tax way back in the year 2004-05 and yet the
Commercial Taxes Department had not issued Form-IXC, as a result of which the
petitioner could have been saddled with the liability to pay further sales tax for the
goods, for which sales tax had already been paid. This obviously prompted the
petitioner to file this writ petition, in which show cause notice was issued to the
respondents.
Having heard the counsel for the parties in the light of the facts
explained and the information, which was furnished, it could be noticed that the
2
Commercial Taxes Department could not issue Form-IXC for although the
respondent-South Eastern Railways had received the amount towards sales tax, it
had failed to transfer the same in the account of the Commercial Taxes
Department. Thus, it is clear to us that the South Eastern Railways retained the
amount paid to it by the petitioner towards sales tax and although it should have
transferred the deposited amount to the Commercial Taxes Department, it failed
to do so.
Learned counsel for the South Eastern Railways, however, had an
explanation to offer with regard to non-transfer of the amount towards sales tax
with the Commercial Taxes Department and it was submitted that it is the
Commercial Taxes Department, which had been refusing to accept the amount
towards sales tax and they were not responsible in any way for non-issuance of
From-IXC by the Commercial Taxes Department. However, it is now informed that
the Commercial Taxes Department is ready to accept the amount paid to the
South Eastern Railways by way of sales tax and issue Form-IXC.
The story narrated herein indicates that there had been some
confrontation between the South Eastern Railways and the Commercial Taxes
Department with regard to transfer of the amount which the petitioner had paid.
Thus, we see no justification as to why the petitioner should suffer in that process
and therefore, we direct the Commercial Taxes Department to accept the amount
of sales tax, which had been deposited by the petitioner to the South Eastern
Railways, and thereafter the Commercial Taxes Department shall issue Form-
IXC to the petitioner.
We, however, record that if there be any dispute between the South
Eastern Railways and the Commercial Taxes Department with regard to delay in
transfer of the amount towards sales tax to the Commercial Taxes Department
and for that reason, if any penalty is imposed on the petitioner, that would be a
separate cause of action to be adjudicated in the event of initiation of a
proceeding by the affected party and we express no opinion on its merit or
otherwise on the same.
3
In so far as this petition is concerned, the petitioner had a just
cause to move this Court for issuance of Form-IXC, as it is stated that he had
already paid the amount of sales tax on the goods which it had purchased and
also deposited the same with the South Eastern Railways. The writ petition, under
the circumstance, is allowed and disposed of.
However, the counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
this is a fit case where cost also should have been awarded to the petitioner, but
as it is still a disputed question as to whether the South Eastern Railways or the
Commercial Taxes Department is at fault for non-deposit/or acceptance of the
amount to the Commercial Taxes Department, it is not possible to impose cost at
this stage. Hence, the contention for awarding cost is rejected.
(Gyan Sudha Misra.C.J.)
(D.K.Sinha.,J.)
dey