1983 (2) TMI 258 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the State rule has been superseded by the Central rule.
2. Compliance with the requirements of rule 5A of the State Rules.
3. Interpretation of Section 6A and burden of proof in case of transfer of goods.
4. Power of the Central Government and State Government to prescribe particulars for declarations under the Act.
5. Allegation of implied repeal of State rule 5A by Central rule 12.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner claimed exemption under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act but was denied as he failed to furnish details under rule 5A of the State Rules. The petitioner argued that the State rule had been superseded by the Central rule. The court found no justification in this contention, stating that both the Central and State Governments had the power to prescribe particulars for declarations. The petitioner's failure to comply with the State rule did not imply its repeal by the Central rule, and the challenge against the assessment orders failed.

2. Rule 5A of the State Rules required specific details to be maintained by the petitioner for claiming exemption under section 6A. The petitioner contended that compliance with rule 12 of the Central Rules was sufficient. The court held that the State and Central rules were not inconsistent, and the petitioner was obligated to adhere to both sets of requirements. The contention that the State rule was unnecessary or superseded by the Central rule was dismissed.

3. Section 6A places the burden of proof on the dealer to show that the movement of goods occurred other than by way of sale to qualify for exemption. The petitioner argued that the goods were sent to another state for sale by an agent, not through inter-State trade. The impugned orders treated the movement as an inter-State sale due to the petitioner's failure to provide required details under rule 5A of the State Rules.

4. The court analyzed the powers of the Central and State Governments to prescribe particulars for declarations under the Act. While the Central Government could prescribe details for any declaration under the Act, the State Government's power was limited to declarations under specific sections. The court found no inconsistency between the rules made by both authorities and upheld the requirement for the petitioner to furnish details under rule 5A of the State Rules.

5. The petitioner alleged that Central rule 12 had impliedly repealed State rule 5A, as compliance with the Central rule should suffice. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the simultaneous conferment of power on both authorities allowed for the State rule to coexist with the Central rule. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any conflict between the rules, leading to the dismissal of the challenge against the assessment orders.