1970 (2) TMI 115 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the concessional rate of tax based on the declaration Form C.
2. Whether the Tribunal was competent to allow additional evidence to prove the correct declaration Form C.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Concessional Rate of Tax Based on Declaration Form C
The Tribunal allowed the concessional rate of tax on the basis of a declaration Form C that contained a wrong date of registration. The correct date was later provided through a letter from the Sales Tax Officer, Broach. The Tribunal accepted this additional evidence and granted the exemption. However, the High Court held that under Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the declaration form must be duly filled and signed by the purchasing dealer, containing all prescribed particulars. The High Court concluded that the exemption claimed under Section 8(1) would not be admissible unless the conditions prescribed in sub-section (4) are satisfied. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to allow the exemption based on the letter was incorrect.

Issue 2: Competence to Allow Additional Evidence
The High Court examined whether the Tribunal had the power to admit additional evidence to correct the entries in Form C. Rule 22 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, states that procedural matters not covered by these rules would be governed by the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. Rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules allows for additional evidence under certain conditions. However, the High Court emphasized that the declaration form is a document prepared by the purchasing dealer, and only the purchasing dealer can correct any mistakes in it. The Tribunal's power to admit additional evidence does not extend to correcting entries in Form C. This principle was supported by precedents like Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer and State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals, which held that the declaration form must be produced in its original and correctly filled form.

Conclusion:
1. The declaration in Form C must be filed in its original form.
2. No other evidence is admissible to substitute or supplement the declaration form if it is lost or incorrectly filled.
3. The selling dealer cannot correct any entry in the declaration form; only the purchasing dealer can rectify mistakes.
4. The Tribunal's view allowing additional evidence to correct Form C was incorrect.

The High Court answered the questions referred to it in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal's decision was wrong. The Tribunal must now dispose of the case conformably with the High Court's judgment, providing an opportunity for the parties to be heard. The reference was accepted, and there was no order as to costs.