1966 (9) TMI 129 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Board of Revenue under section 20 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act setting aside exemption given by Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under section 8.
- Interpretation of rule 9-A of Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules regarding declaration forms for concessional rate under section 8(1).
- Applicability of rule 9-A to inter-State transactions.
- Comparison with a decision of Madras High Court in R. Nandalal and Co. v. Government of Madras regarding rule 10.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the Board of Revenue's decision setting aside an exemption granted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The appellant had entered into four inter-State trade transactions in rice but submitted only two declaration forms instead of four required under section 8(4) to obtain the concession under section 8(1). The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer granted exemption only for one form, leading to an appeal where the dealers were allowed a concessional rate of 1 per cent for transactions exceeding Rs. 5,000. However, the Board of Revenue, in a suo motu revision, concluded that since the declaration forms did not adhere to rule 9-A of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, the concession under section 8(1) was not applicable.

The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of rule 9-A, which allows a registered dealer to issue a single declaration form for multiple purchases in inter-State trade as long as certain conditions are met. The Court emphasized that for the seller to be entitled to the concessional rate under section 8(1), the purchaser must fill and sign the declaration forms as per the prescribed rules. It was highlighted that the forms must comply with the conditions specified in rule 9-A, such as purchases from the same dealer, turnover not exceeding Rs. 5,000, and relating to the same assessment year. In this case, the two declaration forms did not meet these conditions, leading to the denial of the concessional rate.

The appellant argued that rule 9-A was not applicable to inter-State transactions, citing a Madras High Court decision in R. Nandalal and Co. v. Government of Madras. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the Madras High Court decision was based on a different rule (rule 10) and was not directly relevant to the present case. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision to disallow the concession, ruling against the appellant and dismissing the appeal with costs.