1987 (8) TMI 435 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether production of F form in support of commission sales is mandatory?
2. Whether turnover of the dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act is exigible to tax if purchase tax has been paid on the same turnover?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involves a partnership firm registered under the Central Sales Tax Act engaged in the sale of jute in interstate trade. The firm dispatched jute through a commission agent without providing the required F form, leading to disallowed deductions and tax demands. Additionally, the firm sold jute in interstate trade without paying tax, claiming purchase tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal held that proof of sales through a commission agent can be established without the F form, as it is not mandatory. This decision aligns with previous court rulings emphasizing that the burden of proof can be discharged through alternative evidence, not solely reliant on the F form. The use of the word "shall" in the rules was argued to be mandatory by the Revenue, but the court held that non-compliance did not have adverse effects, and procedural rules cannot override statutory provisions. Therefore, the first issue was answered in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
Regarding the second issue, the assessment was set aside by the Tribunal, referencing a withdrawn notification. The Revenue argued that the withdrawal of the notification rendered the previous decision irrelevant. However, the court noted that the non-consideration of the notification during the assessment made the Tribunal's decision vulnerable. The matter was directed to be reconsidered in light of the withdrawn notification. Ultimately, the second issue was answered in a modified form in favor of the Revenue, with a directive for a fresh consideration based on the notification.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the mandatory nature of the F form for commission sales and the impact of a withdrawn notification on tax assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court's analysis emphasized the flexibility in discharging the burden of proof and the necessity of considering all relevant factors in tax assessments.