1979 (2) TMI 180 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ultra vires challenge of rule 8(1-A)(f) of the M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957.
2. Authority of the State Government under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. Issuance of C forms and its impact on concessional tax rates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ultra vires Challenge of Rule 8(1-A)(f):
The petitioner challenged rule 8(1-A)(f) of the M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, arguing it was beyond the rule-making power conferred on the State Government by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner contended that the rule, which allows the Sales Tax Officer to withhold issuance of C forms if the dealer defaults in furnishing returns or is in arrears of tax under the State Act, is not related to carrying out the purposes of the Central Act. The court agreed, stating that the rule-making power under the Central Act is limited to making rules that are consistent with the Act's provisions and for carrying out its purposes. The impugned rule was found to be inconsistent with the Central Act and not necessary for its purposes, thus declared ultra vires.

2. Authority of the State Government under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The court examined the role of the State Government under the Central Act, particularly under section 9(2). It was noted that the State authorities act as agents of the Government of India for assessing, collecting, and enforcing payment of tax under the Central Act. The court emphasized that the State Government's rule-making power is confined to procedural aspects related to the Central Act and cannot be used to enforce State tax dues. The impugned rule was found to overstep this authority by linking the issuance of C forms to compliance with the State Act, which is not permissible under the Central Act.

3. Issuance of C Forms and Its Impact on Concessional Tax Rates:
The petitioner argued that the withholding of C forms by the sales tax authorities adversely affected its business by denying it the benefit of concessional tax rates under section 8(1) of the Central Act. The court noted that section 8(4) of the Central Act prescribes that the benefit of concessional rates is contingent upon furnishing the prescribed declaration forms. The impugned rule made it unduly difficult to avail this benefit by imposing additional conditions not warranted by the Central Act. The court held that the rule, by withholding C forms due to State tax defaults, impeded the enforcement of the concessional tax provisions under the Central Act, thus invalidating the rule to that extent.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and rule 8(1-A)(f) of the M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, was declared ultra vires and invalid to the extent it empowered withholding of C forms based on defaults under the State Act. The court directed that the Sales Tax Officer should not withhold C forms on such grounds while considering applications from the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded costs, and the security deposit was ordered to be refunded.