1967 (4) TMI 114 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time limit of furnish the declarations in Form C - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The third proviso to rule 6(1) is ultra vires of section 8(4) read with section 13(3) and (4) of Central Sales Tax Act. It follows therefore that the assessee was not bound to furnish declarations in Form C before February 16, 1961, in the present case. In the absence of any such time-limit it was the duty of the assessee to furnish the declarations in Form C within a reason- able time, and in the present case it is the admitted position that the assessee did furnish the declarations on March 8, 1961, before the order of assessment was made by the Sales Tax Officer. Thus the assessee has furnished the declarations in Form C in the present case within a reasonable time and there has been a compliance with the requirements of section 8(4)(a) of the Act. It follows that the High Court was right in quashing the order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer and directing him to make a fresh order of assessment after taking Into consideration the declaration forms furnished by the assessee on March 8, 1961.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act regarding the time limit for filing declaration forms.
Validity of the third proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957.
Compliance of the assessee with the requirements of Section 8(4)(a) of the Act.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved an appeal regarding the assessment of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for a dealer in the cocoanut-oil business with inter-State sales. The main issue revolved around the time limit for filing declaration forms as per Section 8(4) of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer imposed tax at different rates based on the presence of proper declaration forms. The assessee filed the forms after the prescribed date due to delayed receipt from the purchaser in Madras. The High Court quashed the assessment orders and directed a fresh assessment considering the belated declaration forms.

The crux of the matter was the interpretation of Section 8(4) in conjunction with Rule 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957. The appellants argued that the assessee's failure to file declaration forms before February 16, 1961, rendered them ineligible for the lower tax rate under Section 8(1). This contention was challenged by the assessee, claiming the third proviso to Rule 6(1) was ultra vires of the Act. The Court examined the phrase "in the prescribed manner" in Section 8(4) and Section 13(4)(e), concluding that it did not encompass a time limit for filing declarations. The legislative intent was clear in distinguishing between the mode of filing and the time element, as evident from Section 13(4)(g).

The Court drew parallels to a historical case, Acraman v. Herniman, to emphasize the importance of statutory language in defining obligations. The judgment highlighted that the phrase "in manner and form" pertains solely to the method of execution, not the timeframe. Moreover, the note accompanying Form C underscored compliance with rules framed under Section 13(4)(e) without specifying a deadline. Consequently, the Court held the third proviso to Rule 6(1) as ultra vires of the Act, affirming the assessee's compliance with Section 8(4)(a) by filing declarations within a reasonable time.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the initial assessment order. The Court affirmed that the assessee fulfilled the statutory requirements by submitting the declaration forms within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, the Sales Tax Officer was directed to conduct a fresh assessment considering the belated declarations.