1985 (11) TMI 213 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding submission of declaration for concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, to determine the validity of accepting secondary evidence for claiming the benefit of a concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales. The case involved a dealer who sought the concessional rate on the sale of "tendu patta" but failed to provide the required declaration in form C as mandated by the statutory provisions. The dealer only presented a photostat copy of the counterfoil of form C, claiming that the original and duplicate had been lost. The assessing authority, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, and Tribunal had differing opinions on the validity of the claim. The Tribunal allowed the benefit, prompting the Commissioner of Sales Tax to seek a reference on the matter.

The Court emphasized the necessity of complying with prescribed procedures to claim the concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales. Citing Supreme Court decisions, it reiterated that furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form C in the prescribed manner is a prerequisite for availing the concessional rate. The Court highlighted the stringent provisions governing the benefit, stating that adherence to the prescribed conditions is essential.

The Court delved into the specific requirements of sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. These provisions mandate the dealer to furnish a declaration containing specified particulars in form C, obtained from a prescribed authority, in case of a lost declaration. The prescribed procedure for such situations involves producing a duplicate of the form with the required declaration. In this case, the dealer failed to follow the prescribed method, leading to the rejection of the claim based solely on a photostat copy of the counterfoil.

The Court cited similar rulings by other High Courts to support its conclusion that the Tribunal erred in granting the benefit of the concessional rate based on insufficient evidence. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the department, holding that the Tribunal's decision was unjustified. The reference was answered against the dealer, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for claiming concessional rates on inter-State sales.