1981 (3) TMI 239 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of D forms mentioning "Bombay" instead of "Delhi".
2. Justification for appellate/revisional authorities refusing to entertain corrected D forms.
3. Entitlement of the petitioner-company to claim concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of D forms mentioning "Bombay" instead of "Delhi"
The core issue was whether the D forms issued in the name of "M/s. C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., Bombay" instead of "M/s. C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., Delhi" were defective. The court held that the mention of "Bombay" in the D forms only indicated the address and did not affect the validity of the forms. The court emphasized that the identity of the seller, "M/s. C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd.," remained the same regardless of the address. The forms were issued correctly as the contract was entered into with the head office in Bombay. The court concluded that the forms were not defective and should not have been rejected based on the address.

Issue 2: Justification for appellate/revisional authorities refusing to entertain corrected D forms
The appellate and revisional authorities had refused to entertain the corrected D forms or certificates produced by the petitioner during the appeal/revision hearings. The court found this refusal unjustified. It was noted that the corrected D forms would have clarified the situation and should have been considered. The court held that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the corrected forms and that the forms should have been accepted to determine the correct tax liability.

Issue 3: Entitlement of the petitioner-company to claim concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales
The petitioner-company claimed a concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales. The court held that the company was entitled to this concessional rate as the sales were inter-State transactions. There was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The court emphasized that the Sales Tax Officer should have granted an opportunity to rectify any defects in the D forms and should have accepted the forms to determine the concessional rate. The court concluded that the company was lawfully entitled to claim the concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales.

Conclusion:
1. The notified authority was not justified in rejecting the D forms because they mentioned "Bombay" instead of "Delhi."
2. The appellate/revisional authorities were not justified in refusing to entertain the corrected D forms or certificates.
3. The petitioner-company is entitled to claim a concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales, provided the sales are proven to be inter-State transactions.

The court awarded costs to the petitioner, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 550.