The legality of C forms accepted by authorities cannot be revoked without substantial evidence proving their inauthenticity.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of arecanut. The petitioner was also a registered assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act. The dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to the cancellation of the concessional tax availed by the petitioner based on the C forms in respect of the interstate sale of arecanut affected by the petitioner pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12.

2. Ext.P1 is the annual return submitted by the petitioner for the relevant year, conceding the total and taxable interstate sale of Rs.4,08,57,760/- and claiming the rate of tax @ 2%, based on the C forms furnished. All the C forms furnished by the petitioner were accepted by the Assessing Authority and the tax was collected at the concessional rates. However, Ext.P2 is the order by which the assessment was completed as early as on 29.01.2014, in which those C forms were accepted. Subsequently, Ext.P3 notice dated 15.02.2018 was issued to the petitioner, by the 3^rd respondent, proposing to reopen the assessment, under Section 56 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act , 2003. The reason mentioned therein was that, some of the C forms (six in numbers), the details of which were furnished in Ext.P3, were found to be manual and details of the same could not be verified from TINXSYS. Therefore, it was proposed to cancel the said assessment. Apart from the above, it was also conveyed that, a difference of Rs.18,00,000/- was there between the conceded interstate sales and check post details. On that ground also, suo motu cancellation of Ext.P2 assessment was proposed.

3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, as evidenced by Ext.P4, in which it was asserted that, the manual C forms were furnished by the petitioner in view of the fact that, the online C forms were not made applicable to all the transactions and the manual C forms were also being issued and accepted during the year 2011-12. It was also contended that, the mere fact that the TINXSYS did not contain the details of the same, would not enable the 3^rd respondent to cancel the assessment, unless it is established that the relevant C forms are bogus. With regard to the difference in the conceded interstate sales and the check post details as alleged in Ext.P3, it was replied by the petitioner that, unless the details of the bills in respect of which this defect was found are furnished, the petitioner would not be able to submit a reply. Therefore, the details were sought for. However, overruling the said objections, Ext.P5 order was passed, canceling the said assessment. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5.

4. Separate counter affidavits were submitted by the

1^st and 3^rd respondents disputing the averments contained in the writ petition and also opposing the reliefs sought. The check post details for the relevant year, in respect of the transactions referred to in Ext.P3 were furnished as Ext.R3(a).

5. I have heard Sri.Santhosh P. Abraham, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Reshmitha R. Chandran, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P5 is mainly on the reason that, the manual C forms were permissible in the year 2011-12. Moreover, a competent officer had acted upon same and granted concessional rate of tax as evidenced by Ext.P2 assessment order. Therefore, the same could not have been canceled merely because of the reason that, the details of such manual C forms are not available in TINXSYS; it was argued.

7. After carefully going through the documents produced, I find some force