1987 (1) TMI 471 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Assessment of exemption claim under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1983-84 based on the proviso to section 6.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three revisions concerning the assessment of exemption claims under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1983-84. The assessee, engaged in the trade of brass wares, sought exemption under the proviso to section 6 of the Act. The proviso states that a dealer shall not be liable to pay tax on sales of goods that qualify as sales in the course of export. The dispute arose when the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) rejected the exemption claim due to discrepancies in the forms submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal also raised concerns about the authenticity of the forms, noting variations in ink and lack of authentication. However, the Tribunal did not receive support for additional reasons to deny the exemption claim, leading to the central question of whether the discrepancies in the forms justified rejecting the claim.

The Tribunal's scrutiny of the forms revealed inconsistencies in ink and lack of authentication, prompting doubts about the authenticity of the documents. Despite these concerns, the Court emphasized that the mere presence of different inks and minor discrepancies should not automatically disqualify the assessee from claiming the exemption. Notably, the forms were presented along with the bill of lading, which could have been used to verify the information and address any discrepancies effectively. The Court highlighted that while the discrepancies might raise suspicions, they did not conclusively prove that the forms were invalid or disconnected from the bill of lading. Moreover, the Court deemed the identified omissions and defects in the forms as minor and insufficient to invalidate the exemption claim.

The Revenue argued for sending the case back to the assessing officer under sub-rule (4) of rule 8A to rectify the minor discrepancies in the forms. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that such trivial defects, which did not impact the exemption claim adversely, did not warrant further review or rectification. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the assessee, falling under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 6 of the Act, was entitled to exemption on the sales made to the exporters. Consequently, all revisions were allowed, with no costs imposed, and a directive was issued to the Tribunal to take appropriate action under section 11(8) of the Act.