1963 (11) TMI 58 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for inter-State trade in cocoanut oil, delay in filing Form C declarations, interpretation of section 8(4) of the Act, conflict between decisions of the Court regarding condonation of delay in filing declarations.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner was assessed for sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act for inter-State trade in cocoanut oil for the year 1959-60. The tax was imposed at different rates based on the turnover due to the delay in filing Form C declarations before the prescribed authority. The petitioner contended that the benefit conferred by section 8(1) could only be taken away if the forms were not furnished in the prescribed manner before the assessment order was made. The conflict arose due to differing interpretations of whether the delay in filing declarations could be condoned.

2. The Court examined the relevant provisions of section 8 and Rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957. Section 8(4) stipulates that the dealer must furnish declarations in the prescribed manner to avoid tax liability. The rules provided for the manner of filing declarations and extended the time for submission through various provisos. The petitioner argued that non-compliance with the time prescribed by the rules should not result in forfeiture of the benefit under section 8(1).

3. The Court referred to a historical legal interpretation regarding the meaning of "in the manner" in statutory provisions. It was established that "manner and form" referred only to the mode of performing an act and did not include the time element. The Court concluded that the rules could prescribe the mode of filing declarations but not the time within which they must be filed. Non-compliance with the time limit prescribed by the rules might attract penalties but should not lead to the loss of benefits under section 8(1).

4. The Court also highlighted that specific provisions in the Act addressed the time element when necessary, indicating that the words "in the manner" were insufficient to prescribe time limits for actions. Therefore, the rules could regulate the manner of filing declarations but not dictate the time for submission.

5. The Court rejected the argument that Rule 6 only governed the manner of filing declarations, emphasizing that the rule also specified the time limit for submitting both returns and declarations. The extensions granted through the provisos demonstrated that the rules encompassed both the manner and timing of filing.

6. The Court declined to comment on previous conflicting judgments regarding the condonation of delays in filing declarations. The current case involved the timely submission of declarations before the assessment order, rendering the issue of condonation irrelevant. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the previous orders, and directed a fresh assessment considering the declarations furnished by the petitioner.

7. The Court's decision clarified the interpretation of section 8(4) and Rule 6, emphasizing that the rules could regulate the manner but not the time for filing declarations. Non-compliance with time limits prescribed by rules should not result in the forfeiture of benefits under the Act.