1956 (7) TMI 36 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 18 of the Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules regarding deduction for manufacturers of groundnut oil.
2. Whether an assessee who has not registered under rule 18(1) can claim the deduction permissible under rule 18(2) by applying for a rebate under Form A9.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved manufacturers of groundnut oil seeking a rebate under rule 18 of the Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules. The dispute arose when the Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessees from the date of commencement of their business, stating that the registration under rule 18(1) only becomes operative from the date of registration. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to a legal challenge by the assessees.
2. The assessees argued that they had submitted a return in Form A9 before their registration date, praying for a rebate from the date of commencement of their business. They relied on a decision of the Madras High Court which suggested that the deduction could be claimed even for the period prior to registration if the application for rebate was made timely.
3. The Full Bench considered the provisions of rule 18, specifically sub-rules (2) and (3), along with Form A9. It was established that the deduction under rule 18(2) is conditional upon complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3), which necessitates submitting a statement in Form A9 by the 25th day of every month.
4. The Full Bench clarified that sub-rule (3A) empowers the Commercial Tax Officer to condone delays in filing the return if the manufacturer has maintained accurate business records. This implies that even for the period before the submission deadline mentioned in sub-rule (3), the officer has the discretion to consider and approve the rebate application.
5. Ultimately, the Full Bench held that the manufacturer could apply for the deduction permissible under rule 18(2) by submitting Form A9, even if not registered under rule 18(1, and the delay in submission could be condoned by the Commercial Tax Officer. The decision of the Full Bench favored the assessees, leading to the revision being allowed with costs.

This judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for claiming deductions under sales tax rules and emphasizes the authority of the Commercial Tax Officer to condone delays in submission based on the maintenance of accurate business records by the manufacturer.