9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "the Act"). They raise a very short but interesting question regarding the entitlement of the assessee to the rebate of tax provided for in section 15 of the Act. At the outset, a reference may be made to the salient portions of certain relevant provisions of the Act. Section 14(1) provides that every registered dealer shall furnish such returns within such period and to such authority as may be prescribed. The prescribed authority is the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who is also the assessing authority. Under rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act, the assessee should file quarterly returns. Such returns are to be filed within one calendar month of the expiry of the period to which they relate. Sub-section (3) of section 14 provides for an extension of time for the filing of the return. It reads: "If the prescribed authority is satisfied that a dealer is, for reasonable cause, unable to furnish any return within the prescribed period or the period fixed under the proviso to sub-section (1), the said authority may extend the period for submission of the return." Section 20 of the Act requires that, before any registered dealer furnishes a return under the Act, he sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed in section 20; and (ii) the quarterly returns of the assessee had been filed within the prescribed period or extended period. As the assessee had not filed its returns within the prescribed period and, since the assessee had sought no extension, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to the rebate. The assessee sought for a reference and, before the High Court, relied on a decision of the same High Court in Jamuna Flour and Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1968] 22 STC 1. The facts of the case were similar to those of the present case and the assessee had been held entitled to the rebate. It is sufficient to extract the relevant portion of the head note: "For the quarter ending 30th June, 1961, the assessee had paid the tax due before 31st July, 1961, but it actually filed the return only on 1st August, 1961. The assessee was assessed on the basis of the return submitted by it, but its claim for rebate under section 15 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, was rejected by the taxing authority on the ground that for the purpose of eligibility for rebate under section 15, the assessee must fulfil two conditions, viz., (1) the tax due for the quarter m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the Revenue which has appealed to the High Court is this. Section 15 is not a taxing provision but one which confers a benefit or concession to assessee. Settled principles of construction of taxing statutes require that such conditions should be strictly construed. The section lays down two conditions for the grant of benefit or concession of which one is not fulfilled. Though the assessee had paid the taxes in time, it had neither filed returns within the prescribed time nor cared to obtain an extension for filing the same. There is no reason why such an assessee should be shown any lenience and given a benefit which it does not deserve on the language of the statute. Granting the correctness of the above argument and assuming that it is also a condition precedent for the grant of rebate that the assessee should have filed its return within the prescribed or extended period, we think it can be said that the said condition is fulfilled in the present case. The return was admittedly not filed within the time prescribed under section 14(1). Has it been filed, then, within the extended period. In answering this question, certain features of the Act have to be kept i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the returns filed. The tax has been paid even before the submission of the returns. There is no suggestion that the tax paid fell short of the tax due on the return. This is also not a case where the assessed tax is much higher than the tax admitted on the basis of the returns. In these circumstances, he argues, the assessee must be held to have fulfilled the conditions prescribed in section 15. Learned counsel for the assessee referred to certain decisions in support of such a rule of construction. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) the court had to construe a provision intended to benefit the assessee. Under section 22(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, a return of loss had to be filed within the time prescribed for return under section 22(1) if the assessee wanted to carry forward the loss claimed. It was not so filed but was nevertheless treated as a valid return by reading the provisions of section 22(1) and 22(3) of the Act jointly and giving a liberal interpretation to section 22(2A). In the case of Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC), the question was regarding the charge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
