1991 (11) TMI 232 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal to accept 'C' declaration forms by the Tribunal.
2. Error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the acceptance of 'C' declaration forms by the Tribunal under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The assessee, M/s. Rungta Mines (P.) Ltd., claimed deductions for sales to registered dealers in Bihar for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessing officer found defects in some forms, which were rectified and resubmitted. However, for other forms, the assessee contended that there were no defects based on a previous court decision. The assessing officer disagreed, disallowed the claim, and raised extra demand. The matter was appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who rejected the plea for resubmission of forms, leading to further appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in considering the case, refused to accept certain declaration forms as additional evidence. The assessee argued that they were not given the opportunity to submit the correct forms and that they believed the forms were in order. The Tribunal wrongly assumed that the forms were returned to the assessee and not resubmitted, leading to the refusal to accept them as additional evidence. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in its decision. It was established that the assessee had the forms and wanted to submit them, and the Tribunal should have considered the case in the correct perspective. The High Court cited a previous ruling that allowed the production of declaration forms at the appellate stage if certain conditions were met. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal was unjustified in refusing to accept the 'C' declaration forms, although the correctness of the forms was not evaluated.

In conclusion, the High Court did not address the first issue as the case's outcome depended on the acceptance of the declaration forms. The High Court found the Tribunal's refusal to accept the forms unjustified and directed the Tribunal to assess the forms' correctness under section 24(5) and dispose of the matter accordingly. Both judges, Pasayat A. and Mohanty S.K., concurred with the decision.