1974 (11) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of rule 4-B(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding acceptance of declarations in form C by the appellate authority.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Bombay High Court involved a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The central question was whether the appellate authority could accept declarations in form C, not produced during assessment, to subject sales to a concessional tax rate under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The relevant provisions included section 8(1) and sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, along with Rule 4-B(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957, which outlined the requirements for claiming a lower tax rate for inter-State sales.

The factual background revealed that the Sales Tax Officer disallowed a deduction claimed by the respondents as declarations in form D were not provided during assessment. The respondents later submitted duplicate declarations to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax during the appeal stage. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal, stating that the Sales Tax Officer had given sufficient time for producing the declarations. However, the Sales Tax Tribunal found that the respondents' inability to produce the declarations earlier was beyond their control, and the Assistant Commissioner should have considered the duplicates submitted during the appeal.

The judgment referenced a case from the Mysore High Court, emphasizing that the appellate authority has the power to correct errors and consider additional evidence not presented during the original assessment. The High Court agreed with this principle, stating that if the Assistant Commissioner found an error in not granting more time for producing declarations, he could have remanded the matter or accepted the declarations himself. The Court also cited a similar decision by the Allahabad High Court, supporting the appellate authority's discretion in granting relief based on the circumstances.

The Court distinguished other cases where declarations were not sought during assessment or were presented for the first time during the appeal, noting that the situation in the present case was different. Ultimately, the Court held that the appellate authority was justified in accepting the duplicate declarations and granting relief to the respondents. The judgment concluded by answering the reference in the affirmative and directing the applicant to pay the costs of the reference to the respondents.