IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25942 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN,REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER MR.GANESH. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI. NIVEDITA A. KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY. 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH II, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXATION), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 25942 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The assessment against the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) pertaining to the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 was completed, rejecting the claim for exemption with respect to turnover of stock transfer, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce 'F' Form declarations. The assessment orders were challenged in appeals and ultimately in Ext.P2 order of the Appellate Tribunal the documents produced to prove the claim, which are the 'F' Form declarations pertaining to the year 1996-97 was accepted. With respect to the year 1997-98, the petitioner had produced 'F' Form declarations as well as other documents to prove the stock transfer. In Ext.P2 order the Tribunal observed that, with respect to the year 1997-98 the petitioner had produced 'F' Form declarations to the tune of Rs.84,59,279/- and further documentary W.P.(C)No. 25942 of 2009 -2- evidence to prove stock transfer to the tune of Rs.71,12,464/-. The evidences produced in this regard must be considered and adjudicated by the primary authority, who is the Assessing Officer and for that purpose the matter is remanded for denovo assessment. The assessing officer was directed to hear the appellant and to pass fresh orders. Ext.P3 is the consequential order passed with respect to the year 1997-98. 2. In Ext.P3 the 1st respondent assessing authority had rejected the claim to the extent of turnover of 71,12,464/-, holding that claim with respect to stock transfer to the above extent cannot be accepted due to lack of production of 'F' Form declarations. The assessing authority observed that as per the amendment brought in to Section 6 A of the CST Act, production of 'F' Form declarations is compulsory for the claim of transfer of goods other than than by way of sale. Therefore the assessing authority refused to look into alternate evidences produced. It is also observed that the alternate evidences produced W.P.(C)No. 25942 of 2009 -3- are verified and were found to be genuine. 3. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order on the ground that the amendment brought in to Section 6 A of the CST Act during the year 2002 through Finance Act 2002 with effect from 05.11.2002 is not applicable in this case. Contention is that the amendment has got only prospective effect and it cannot be made applicable with respect to assessment pertaining to the year 1997-98. It is further contended that Ext.P3 is in total violation of the directions contained in the appellate order of the Tribunal. 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is contented that at the time of passing the revised assessment order, production of 'F' Forms is made mandatory to prove stock transfer, as per Section 6 A of the CST Act, and therefore the claim could not be allowed. 5. On a perusal of the contentions on both sides, I am convinced that the amendment brought to Section 6 A has no relevance in the case at hand, because the assessment pertains to the year 1997-98. The appellate W.P.(C)No. 25942 of 2009 -4- Tribunal had issued specific direction in Ext.P2 order to verify the alternate evidences produced in lieu of 'F' Forms. The assessing authority after verification of such evidences were convinced that the documents produced in this regard are genuine and the stock transfer is evident from those documents. The rejection of the claim solely depending on the amendment brought to Section 6A, seems to be a wrong application or interpretation of the provisions. 6. Therefore I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 order of assessment is unsustainable. Hence I quash Ext.P3. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders taking note of the above observations, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/