1987 (8) TMI 421 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act regarding the mandatory requirement of official declaration form for claiming deduction for sales made to registered dealers. Whether levy of tax at each point in a series of transactions violates section 8 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a reference under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act regarding the mandatory requirement of official declaration form for claiming deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act. The assessee, a registered dealer, claimed deduction for sales to other registered dealers but the claim was rejected due to non-submission of the required declarations. The primary issue was whether furnishing the declaration form was mandatory for claiming the deduction.

2. The contention raised was that the requirement of furnishing the declaration form was not mandatory, and the dealer could prove entitlement to deduction through other means. However, the court noted that the statutory provision mandated proving deductions in the prescribed manner, which included furnishing declarations in form No. XXXIV to the Sales Tax Officer. The addition of clause (B) to section 5(2) post-amendment indicated a change in position, making the submission of declarations mandatory.

3. Another argument presented was regarding the levy of tax at each point in a series of transactions, potentially violating section 8 of the Act. The court clarified that under section 8, the term "series" was crucial, and transactions must be linked to constitute a series. The Act aimed to levy tax at a single point of sale to prevent multiple taxation on the same transaction, ensuring fairness and convenience in tax collection.

4. The court emphasized that section 5(2) supplements section 8 and does not contradict it. The legislative intent was to prevent unjust results and ensure equity in taxation. The court referred to previous decisions to support the interpretation that strict literal construction should be avoided if it leads to absurd outcomes, and equity should be favored in tax matters.

5. Various judgments were cited to support the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind them. The court rejected the argument that liberalizing the interpretation of the provisions would be a violation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for claiming deductions under the Act.

6. Ultimately, the court answered the reference against the assessee, affirming the mandatory requirement of furnishing official declaration forms for claiming deductions under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's reasoning in interpreting the relevant statutory provisions.