1976 (4) TMI 195 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee to produce C forms after the final assessment.
2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to direct the assessing authority to accept C forms filed after the final assessment and/or to condone the delay in filing C forms.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of the Appellate Tribunal's Decision to Allow the Assessee to Produce C Forms After the Final Assessment

The primary question was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce the C forms before the assessing officer even after the final assessment was completed. The Tribunal had set aside the assessment order and remitted the file to the assessing officer with a direction to finalize the assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the C forms and verify their genuineness. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had obtained the C forms subsequently and prayed for an opportunity to produce them, noting that the delay in obtaining the forms was not solely the assessee's fault as they had to depend on other parties.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to Direct the Assessing Authority to Accept C Forms Filed After the Final Assessment and/or to Condon the Delay in Filing C Forms

The second issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to direct the assessing authority to accept the C forms filed after the final assessment and/or to condone the delay in filing the C forms. The court examined previous decisions to understand the scope of the Tribunal's power. In T.R.C. No. 1 of 1960, the Tribunal was found justified in accepting C forms produced after the assessment due to sufficient cause. However, in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Abdul Wasigh and Bros., it was held that the Tribunal should not condone the delay unless the failure to produce the forms was beyond the assessee's control and without negligence.

The court also referred to Palaniappa Match Works v. State of Kerala, where it was held that the appellate authority should have excused the delay in the production of C forms as there were no laches on the part of the assessee. In T.R.C. No. 33 of 1964, it was held that the appellate authority has the power to grant time to produce C forms if the assessing authority had not granted sufficient time.

Conclusion and Remand

The court concluded that an appeal should be decided on the record as it stands unless the appellate authority finds the record insufficient or there is fresh evidence justifying a review. If the appellate authority finds that the assessee's failure to produce the C forms was beyond his control and without negligence, it can receive the C forms or direct the assessing authority to do so. However, the Tribunal in this case did not sufficiently consider whether the assessee was diligent in obtaining the C forms and whether there was any negligence on his part.

The case was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the appeal, giving the assessee a full opportunity to explain the circumstances under which the C forms could not be produced before the assessing authority. The revision case was ordered on these terms with no order as to costs.