1966 (9) TMI 119 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash sales tax assessment order.
2. Dispute over applicable tax rate for inter-State sales turnover.
3. Interpretation of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. Validity of Rule 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957.
5. Timing of filing declaration for claiming lower tax rate under Section 8(1).

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a registered dealer in timber, challenged a sales tax assessment order by the Sales Tax Officer, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order. The petitioner's appeal and revision petition were rejected due to non-payment of assessed tax before appeal admission.

2. The main contention revolved around the applicable tax rate for inter-State sales turnover. The petitioner argued for a lower tax rate of one percent under Section 8(1) of the Act, citing sales to registered dealers. However, the Sales Tax Officer assessed tax at seven percent as the petitioner did not appear during assessment proceedings.

3. The interpretation of Section 8(4) of the Act was crucial in determining the validity of the petitioner's claim for the lower tax rate. Section 8(4) mandates that a declaration from the purchasing dealer must be furnished to the taxing authority in the prescribed manner for claiming the lower tax rate.

4. The validity of Rule 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, was questioned regarding the timing of filing declarations. The rule required attaching declarations to the return, but the petitioner argued that it was inconsistent with Section 8(4) and thus invalid.

5. The court analyzed the requirement of filing declarations before the taxing authority and before assessment to claim the lower tax rate under Section 8(1). The petitioner's failure to produce declarations before the Sales Tax Officer rendered the declarations filed later before the Additional Commissioner ineffective, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's claims.

In conclusion, the court upheld the assessment order against the petitioner, dismissing the application with costs to the respondents and refunding any outstanding security deposit after deduction of costs to the petitioner.