1996 (8) TMI 449 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Additional District Judge was justified in directing the notified authority to accept the photostat copies and the counter-foils of the declaration in form C of the turnover of 3, 59, 497.38 in respect of the sales stated to have been made by the respondent in the course of inter-State trade and commerce? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The assessee had not done all that it could; it could and should have preferred an appeal against the order of the learned single judge and persisted in its application for obtaining from the official liquidator duplicates of the C form declarations as required by rule 12(3). Since it did not in the face of the clear language of the rule its case can hardly be said to be a hard case. The language of the provision here is clear and was rightly applied by the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 regarding compliance with "C" form declaration requirements.

Detailed Analysis:

The High Court was tasked with determining whether the Additional District Judge was justified in directing the notified authority to accept photostat copies and counter-foils of the declaration in form 'C' for a turnover amount in the context of inter-State trade and commerce. The High Court ruled against the assessee, leading to the appeal by the assessee. The case revolved around the sale of 12 trucks to a company that later went into liquidation, failing to provide the necessary "C" form declarations to the assessee. The official liquidator confirmed the issuance of 8 sales tax "C" forms but not for the remaining 4 sales, prompting the assessee to seek duplicates for the issued forms. However, the single Judge only allowed the assessee to obtain photostat copies of the 8 "C" forms, which were then submitted to the sales tax authorities.

The crux of the matter lay in the interpretation of rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which outlined the procedure for obtaining duplicates of lost declaration forms. The Additional District Judge opined that submitting photostat copies of the counterfoils should suffice as compliance with the rule. However, the sales tax authorities rejected the copies, citing rule 12(3) requirements. The High Court, upon review, sided with the Revenue, emphasizing the non-compliance with the rule's stipulations.

During the appeal, the assessee argued that it had made reasonable efforts and there was substantial compliance with rule 12(3). The counsel referenced a previous court judgment to support their stance. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the assessee had not exhausted all available avenues, such as appealing the single Judge's decision and persisting in obtaining duplicates from the official liquidator. The court clarified that the language of rule 12(3) was unambiguous and correctly applied by the High Court, distinguishing it from the ambiguous statute in the cited precedent.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and ordering the appellant to bear the costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions and the necessity for parties to exhaust all legal remedies available to them in such matters.