1992 (7) TMI 319 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 regarding acceptance of declaration forms for deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) for the assessment year 1971-72.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Acceptance of Declaration Forms
The case involved a dispute regarding the acceptance of declaration forms furnished by a dealer, M/s. Bishnu Stores, for claiming a deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the basis that the purchaser did not function during the relevant assessment year, and thus, the declarations produced were not acceptable. The Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the burden on the dealer to prove the genuineness of the declarations. However, the Tribunal found that there was no finding that the declarations were not genuine or that the purchaser was not entitled to make purchases based on their registration certificate. The Tribunal directed the acceptance of the declarations and allowed the deduction claim.

Issue 2: Burden of Proof
The Revenue contended that the burden lay on the dealer to substantiate its claim of deduction, and since the dealer failed to produce the purchaser, the declaration forms should not be accepted. Reference was made to a previous court decision emphasizing that if the genuineness of declarations is doubted, the burden of proof lies on the claimant. However, in this case, no dispute was raised regarding the genuineness of the declarations. The Court highlighted that certificates of registration carry value, and a registered dealer is entitled to benefits under the Act. It was noted that the dealer is not required to produce the purchaser unless there is doubt about the purchaser's identity. The Tribunal's decision to permit the deduction was upheld, emphasizing that the seller's concern is the validity of the registration certificate, not the functioning of the purchaser.

Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion that the dealer was entitled to the deduction and the direction to accept the declaration forms were appropriate. The Court emphasized that the dealer was not obligated to produce the purchaser unless there was doubt about the purchaser's identity. The reference was answered in the affirmative, affirming the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction claim.