1969 (3) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellate authority can consider 'C' forms filed after the assessment order when insufficient time had been allowed for their submission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority to Consider Late 'C' Forms:
The primary issue in this case is whether the appellate authority can consider 'C' forms filed after the assessment order when insufficient time had been allowed for their submission. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Relevant Provisions:
Under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer who sells goods in the course of inter-State trade to another registered dealer is liable to pay tax at a concessional rate of one percent, provided they submit a declaration in the prescribed 'C' form. Rule 5-A of the Central Sales Tax (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1957, allows for the filing of revised returns before the assessment is made.

Appellate Authority's Powers:
The appellate authority's powers under section 9(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act include the ability to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, or to set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to pass a fresh order. These powers are co-extensive with those of the Sales Tax Officer, allowing the appellate authority to consider 'C' forms filed after the assessment if it is satisfied that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee.

Case Analysis:
The assessee in this case had requested additional time to file the 'C' forms, which was not adequately granted by the Sales Tax Officer. The appellate authority, upon finding that the 'C' forms were filed shortly after the assessment order and were in order, granted relief to the assessee. The Judge (Revisions) upheld this decision, stating that the appellate authority could either set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment or directly consider the 'C' forms and grant relief.

Legal Precedents:
The judgment cites several precedents, including:
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan & Co.: The Supreme Court held that the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are co-extensive with those of the Income-tax Officer, allowing for the revision of all processes leading to the assessment.
- State of Orissa v. Babu Lal Chappolia: The Supreme Court upheld the appellate authority's power to entertain new grounds and grant relief based on revised returns.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to consider 'C' forms filed after the assessment if it finds that sufficient opportunity was not granted during the assessment proceedings. This is based on the principle that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and the appellate authority possesses the same powers as the original assessing authority. The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and awarded costs to the assessee.

Final Judgment:
The question referred was answered in the affirmative, confirming that the appellate authority can consider 'C' forms filed after the assessment order if insufficient time was allowed for their submission. The assessee was entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 100, with the same fee for counsel.