1970 (1) TMI 78 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1960-61.
2. Claim for concessional rate of tax on disputed turnover.
3. Dispute over non-production of 'C' and 'D' forms.
4. Appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
5. Second appeal to the Tribunal.
6. Reagitation of claim in second appeal.
7. Interpretation of section 36 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
8. Estoppel created by voluntarily giving up a portion of the claim.
9. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal.
10. Remitting the case for fresh disposal.
11. Dismissal of the tax case.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court dealt with the assessment of Messrs Central Camera Company (Private) Limited under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessing officer found a sum of Rs. 4,66,092.17 as the assessable turnover, which led to a dispute regarding the concessional rate of tax due to non-production of 'C' and 'D' forms. The assessee initially claimed a concessional rate but later restricted the claim in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, focusing only on the turnover related to 'D' forms. The Tribunal, in the second appeal, refused to entertain the reagitated claim and remitted the case for fresh disposal concerning a specific disputed turnover of Rs. 47,114.67. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present his case before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, leading to the remit decision.

The court addressed the argument of the assessee regarding the interpretation of section 36 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, emphasizing the principle of not being able to approbate and reprobate. The court highlighted that an assessee cannot voluntarily give up a portion of the claim and then seek to reintroduce it based on subsequent judicial precedents. The court also discussed the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal, stating that the Tribunal's authority is limited to considering the propriety, legality, and regularity of the appealed order. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to restrict the remit to the specific disputed turnover was appropriate, considering the assessee's conduct in giving up rights to agitate on a particular turnover.

In analyzing the estoppel created by voluntarily giving up a portion of the claim, the court held that an assessee's conscious decision to relinquish a claim before the appellate authority creates a binding estoppel, preventing the assessee from later seeking to include the same turnover in the assessment. The court dismissed the tax case, upholding the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction by limiting the remit to the turnover specifically disputed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.