1998 (11) TMI 628 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Sales Tax Officers regarding deductions on sales to specific companies.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the sale of iron and steel goods, challenged orders refusing deductions on sales to specific companies. The petitioner submitted declarations as required under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act for the relevant period. The Sales Tax Officer refused the deductions, alleging collusion between the petitioner and purchasing dealers to evade sales tax. The petitioner's revision and review requests were also dismissed. The central issue was the refusal of deductions based on the purpose of purchases by the buying dealers.

The petitioner contended that under the Act, the selling dealer is not obligated to inquire into the purpose of purchases by buying dealers as long as valid declarations are submitted. Rule 51 of the Rules 1959 was cited to support this argument. The Court agreed, stating that the selling dealer cannot be required to investigate the purpose of purchases by buying dealers who are duly registered under the Act. The Court found the Sales Tax Officers unjustified in rejecting the petitioner's declarations.

The Court referenced a previous case to emphasize the scope of liability of selling dealers upon production of declarations. It noted that the respondents failed to provide relevant registration certificates of the buying dealers to prove that the purchased items were not incidental goods. The Court also rejected the new defense raised by the respondents during the proceedings, citing a Supreme Court judgment that limits the authority to examine the genuineness of declarations. The Court found the impugned orders unsustainable and quashed them.

The respondents relied on division bench judgments that did not apply to the current case, as they dealt with different provisions. The Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the respondents erred in ignoring the petitioner's declarations. The Court set aside the orders and directed a fresh assessment by the Sales Tax Officer. The petition was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs and any security costs to be refunded to the petitioner.