1988 (2) TMI 432 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court for revision against orders under different sections of the Act.
2. Condonation of delay in filing revision.
3. Interpretation of provisions regarding exemption from sales tax.
4. Requirement of producing form S.T. 41 for exemption.
5. Burden of proof on principal for exemption.
6. Consideration of alternative evidence for proving tax payment by commission agent.
7. Failure of authorities to consider relevant documents.
8. Powers of assessing authority and appellate authority under section 24 of the Act.
9. Correctness of the order restricting proof to form S.T. 41.
10. Setting aside the order and directing further action by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment in question involves a revision under section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, filed against an order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal. The preliminary objections raised included the jurisdiction of the High Court for revision against different sections of the Act and the timeliness of the revision. The delay in filing the revision was condoned based on the petitioner's submission and circumstances presented, leading to the acceptance of the revision against the order passed in appeal on 15th May 1987.

The core issue pertains to the interpretation of provisions concerning exemption from sales tax under section 9B(2) of the Act and rule 42A(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, specifically regarding the requirement of producing form S.T. 41 for claiming exemption. The petitioner contended that non-production of form S.T. 41 should not be fatal if other evidence can establish tax payment by the commission agent. The burden of proof lies on the principal to satisfy the assessing authority that tax has been paid by the commission agent, with rule 42A(2) providing alternative modes of proof beyond form S.T. 41.

The judgment highlights the failure of authorities to consider alternative evidence presented by the assessee, such as notices, replies, statements of accounts, and bills, to establish tax payment by the commission agent. Furthermore, it emphasizes the powers granted to the assessing authority and appellate authority under section 24 of the Act to enforce attendance, examine witnesses, and compel document production, which were not adequately utilized in this case.

The Court concluded that the order restricting proof solely to form S.T. 41 was incorrect and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the evidence presented by the assessee or instruct the assessing authority to conduct further inquiries. The judgment set aside the earlier order and maintained the penalty under section 7AA of the Act unchallenged. The parties were scheduled to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings as directed by the Court, ultimately allowing the petition.