1995 (1) TMI 328 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Application under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958
- Benefit of concessional rate of sales tax under section 8(4)(a) and (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
- Production of "C" forms and "D" forms before the assessing authority
- Denial of benefit of concessional rate of tax for "D" form transactions
- Negligence in obtaining and producing "C" forms
- Jurisdiction of appellate authority to receive documents

Analysis:

The petitioner filed an application under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, seeking the benefit of concessional rate of sales tax for certain sales made in the year 1976-77. The benefit was subject to the production of original "C" forms and "D" forms before the assessing authority as per the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and related rules. The petitioner had produced "D" forms for the previous year but failed to obtain and produce original "C" forms for the relevant year. The assessing authority denied the concessional rate for "C" form transactions due to the petitioner's negligence in obtaining the forms in a timely manner.

The appellate authority upheld the denial, stating that the petitioner's explanation for not obtaining the "C" forms was not reasonable. The petitioner argued that since the case was remanded for "D" form transactions, it should also be remanded for "C" form transactions. However, the Court found that the circumstances for both types of transactions were different. The petitioner's delay in attempting to obtain the "C" forms, coupled with the lack of evidence of diligent efforts, led the appellate authority to conclude that the petitioner was negligent.

The petitioner contended that the appellate authority should have remanded the case based on the jurisdiction to receive documents. However, the Court held that the question of whether sufficient cause was established was a matter of fact, not law. As both the appellate authority and the Tribunal had already considered and decided on this issue, the Court found no grounds to direct a further statement of the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.