1996 (12) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 3-G of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 regarding the authority to prescribe the limitation for filing form III-D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The writ petition raised the question of whether the rule-making authority could prescribe the limitation for filing form III-D under section 3-G of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The relevant section allowed for a concessional tax rate if the dealer furnished a declaration in the prescribed form to the assessing authority. The petitioner argued that the language of section 3-G did not entitle the rule-making authority to impose a time-limit for filing form III-D.

2. The court examined the relevant rules, specifically rule 12-C(2), which required dealers to submit form III-D within a specified time frame. The court noted that the selling dealer was mandated to furnish form III-D by the first date for final assessment of the relevant assessment year. The petitioner contended that the rule prescribing a time-limit was ultra vires section 3-G.

3. The court considered the interpretation of the phrase "in such manner" in section 3-G and its implications on the authority of the rule-making body to set a time-limit for filing form III-D. The petitioner argued that the phrase was limited to specifying particulars in the form and did not extend to prescribing a time-frame for submission.

4. Referring to a precedent, the court cited Sales Tax Officer v. K.I. Abraham, where the Supreme Court clarified that the phrase "in the prescribed manner" did not authorize setting a time-limit for filing declarations by registered dealers. Applying this reasoning, the court held that the phrase "in such manner" in section 3-G did not empower the rule-making authority to impose a time-limit without specific language indicating so.

5. Consequently, the court declared rule 12-C(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 as ultra vires section 3-G, as it exceeded the authority granted by the statute in prescribing a time-limit for filing form III-D. The petition was allowed, directing the appellate authority to consider the forms filed by the petitioner without rejecting them based on the limitation issue.

6. It was mentioned that an appeal had been filed against the assessment order for the relevant year, which had been decided. The judgment concluded by allowing the petition and instructing the appellate authority to review the filed forms without considering the limitation aspect, and to issue appropriate orders in accordance with the law.