1977 (1) TMI 55 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Assessment of sales tax for the year 1968-69.
3. Validity of accepting 'C' forms and bills in the assessment process.
4. Determination of whether the order passed by the Additional District Judge was based on a question of fact or law.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with applications under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, concerning the assessment of sales tax for the year 1968-69. The respondent, a registered dealer, was assessed for sales tax under both acts, but exemptions were not granted due to non-furnishing of required declarations. The Additional District Judge allowed second revisions based on contentions regarding the initial assessment order's validity, leading to a dispute over the interpretation of the Acts' provisions.

2. The respondent argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte under a mistake, as the dealer's representative was present on the date of assessment but the case was not taken up by the Sales Tax Officer. The Additional District Judge accepted the contentions, believing in the veracity of the dealer's affidavit and directing a fresh assessment considering 'C' forms and bills. The Commissioner, Sales Tax contested this decision, claiming that the Judge should not have accepted the documents, as the opportunity to produce them was allegedly not denied by the assessing authority.

3. The controversy revolves around the acceptance of the 'C' forms and bills by the Additional District Judge. The Commissioner argued that the Judge erred in accepting these documents based on factual considerations rather than legal questions. The Judge's decision to remand the case for further inquiry on the bills related to sales to registered dealers was also challenged, emphasizing that the assessing authority was not obligated to accept the documents without proper verification.

4. The final issue pertains to the nature of the Additional District Judge's order - whether it was based on a question of fact or law. The Commissioner contended that the Judge's decision was factual in nature and did not raise any legal questions warranting a reference to the High Court. The refusal to draw up a statement of case and refer the matter to the High Court was based on the belief that the Judge's order did not involve a substantial question of law, but rather factual determinations within the assessment process.