1988 (3) TMI 426 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of C forms issued by purchasing dealers whose registration certificates were canceled.
2. Obligation of the assessee to verify the genuineness of purchasing dealers' registration.
3. Compliance with procedural rules regarding the surrender of unused C forms post-cancellation of registration.
4. Justification for the reassessment at a higher tax rate by the Commercial Tax Officer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of C Forms Issued by Purchasing Dealers:
The Commercial Tax Officer proposed to tax the turnover at the full rate of 10% for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, and 1973-74, arguing that the C forms issued by some dealers were invalid due to the cancellation of their registration. The assessee objected, contending that the sales were bona fide and the C forms were accepted during the original assessment. The Tribunal upheld the reassessment, stating the burden of proving the validity of the C forms lay on the assessee.

2. Obligation of the Assessee to Verify Genuineness:
The Revenue argued that the assessee should have investigated the validity of the purchasing dealers' registration before accepting the C forms. The Government Pleader cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals to support this obligation. However, the assessee contended that there was no complicity between him and the purchasing dealers and that he had no reason to doubt the genuineness of the C forms issued.

3. Compliance with Procedural Rules:
The Court examined Rule 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and Rule 4-A(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957. It was noted that if a registration certificate is canceled, the dealer must surrender it and any unused C forms. The Court found no evidence that the purchasing dealers had surrendered their C forms or that the authorities had declared the forms obsolete or invalid. The Court held that the assessee was entitled to assume the registration certificates were valid based on the possession of C forms by the purchasing dealers.

4. Justification for Reassessment:
The Court criticized the Commercial Tax Officer for not providing the assessee with the necessary information to verify the claims made in the reassessment notice. The Court concluded that the assessee had taken reasonable precautions and had no reason to doubt the validity of the C forms. The reassessment at a higher tax rate was deemed unjustified and illegal.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the tax revision cases, quashing the impugned assessment orders. It held that the assessee's claim for assessment at a concessional rate of tax was rejected without justification. The Commercial Tax Officer's failure to provide necessary information and the lack of compliance with procedural rules regarding the surrender of C forms were key factors in the decision. The petitions were allowed, and the Government Pleader's fee was set at Rs. 250 in each case.