1979 (11) TMI 233 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's request for F form book under Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Allegations of misuse of F forms by the petitioner.
3. Sales Tax Officer's refusal to issue F forms.
4. Interpretation of rule 8(1-A)(g) of M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1967.
5. Compliance with rule 8(1-A)(f) of M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, requested F forms under section 6A(1) of the Central Act to receive goods for sale on consignment. The petitioner alleged that the Sales Tax Officer arbitrarily refused to issue the F forms, hindering the petitioner's business operations. The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to fulfill their legal duty under the Central Act and supply the F form book.

2. Respondents contended that complaints were received regarding the petitioner's registration, suggesting misuse by another individual. The Sales Tax Officer exercised caution in issuing F forms due to this suspicion. The petitioner's applications for F forms were scrutinized, and it was found that the petitioner had outstanding sales tax liabilities. The respondents argued that the Sales Tax Officer's actions were justified given the circumstances to prevent potential tax evasion.

3. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim was based on the misconception that the Sales Tax Officer could not issue fewer than 25 F forms. However, rule 8(1-A)(g) of the M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1967, allowed the Officer to provide a lesser number of forms if deemed necessary, with reasons recorded. The Sales Tax Officer had not made a final decision on the petitioner's application for F forms, indicating that the issue was still under consideration.

4. The amended rule empowered the Sales Tax Officer to use discretion in issuing F forms based on the dealer's actual requirement, contrary to the previous restriction. The Court observed that the Officer's actions were in line with the amended rule, and the petitioner's failure to comply with tax payment requirements further complicated the issuance of F forms.

5. The Court highlighted the invalidity of rule 8(1-A)(f) of M.P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, as declared by a Division Bench in a previous case. The Sales Tax Officer's insistence on tax payment before issuing F forms was deemed inappropriate. The Court emphasized that the Officer should assess the petitioner's application on its merits and provide reasons for any decision to issue a lesser number of forms. As no final order had been issued by the Sales Tax Officer, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it was not maintainable.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, subject to the observations made, and ordered the refund of the security amount to the petitioner.