1981 (9) TMI 255 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of account books for non-issuance of cash memo for petty sales.

Analysis:
The case involved the Commissioner of Sales Tax filing a revision regarding the rejection of account books of an assessee due to the non-issuance of cash memos for petty sales. The assessee was engaged in the business of cement, oil, and mobile oil during the assessment year 1973-74. Despite no adverse material found during surveys, the account books were rejected based on the higher consumption of electricity and failure to issue cash memos for a portion of sales. However, the appellate authority accepted the explanation for higher electricity consumption due to machinery wear and tear and found no reason to reject the account books for the non-issuance of cash memos, especially when no adverse material was discovered during the survey.

The learned standing counsel argued that the non-issuance of cash memos alone could justify the rejection of account books, citing relevant case laws. However, a Division Bench decision highlighted that the issuance of consolidated cash memos at the end of the day should not lead to the rejection of account books. The court emphasized that the recording of consolidated sales in account books or issuing consolidated cash memos serves the same purpose, and the absence of individual cash memos at the time of sale should not be a sole reason for rejection.

The court referenced Section 8-A(4), which mandates dealers to issue cash memos or bills, with exceptions for sales below a specified amount and small dealers. It was noted that while the failure to issue cash memos exposes the assessee to penalties, maintaining accurate account books as per Section 12 should not result in their rejection. The court provided an illustrative example of a garment dealer's transactions to emphasize that the absence of cash memos should not render the account books defective if the transactions are verifiable through other means.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision, emphasizing that the non-issuance of cash memos should not be a standalone ground for rejecting account books, especially when the transactions are properly recorded and verifiable. The court awarded costs to the respondent and upheld the decision to dismiss the petition.