9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (6) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority indicated to the assessee that the declaration was not In compliance with the proviso to rule 10(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, he obtained fresh but separate declarations in C Form for each of the two sales and tendered them to the officer, before he completed assessment. He declined to accept the fresh declarations apparently on the ground that they were not filed along with the monthly returns as required by rule 5(1) of the said Rules and that no discretion in him vested to condone the delay in the late filing. The sum of Rs. 1,47,979.71 included three items of turnover totalling Rs. 48,681.08 in respect of which declarations in C Form were filed and accepted by the assessing authority. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes found the position of the assessee to be worse, and enhanced the turnover chargeable to the higher rate. Apart from the sum of Rs. 9,126, which he held to be chargeable at seven per cent., he added to the chargeable turnover at that rate Rs. 8,295.15 as referable to excise duty not eligble for deduction and another sum of Rs. 48,681.08, which, as we already mentioned, pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the C Form declarations relating to the two sales for a total consideration of Rs. 9,126, and (2) the propriety of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner declining to receive additional documents filed to rectify the defects found for the first time by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner In the relative C Forms. We will consider the second point first. Section 8(1) of the Central Act charges inter-State sales to a registered dealer other than the Government, goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3) at one per cent., as the section stood at the relevant time. It is not stated before us that the goods sold by the assessee were not of the kind within the scope of sub-section (3). But the rate of one per cent. will be applicable only if the conditions prescribed therefor by subsection (4) of section 8 are complied with. The sub-section requires, in order that sub-section (1) may apply, that the dealer selling goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. Noncompl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sons[1962] 13 S.T.C. 680 at 684. was of the opinion that failure to furnish declarations in C Form along with the monthly return where rule 5(1) applied, or along with the final return where rule 10(2) was applicable, would involve forfeiture of the benefit of the lower rate of tax and would render the transaction liable to the higher rate. The Court observed: "The rule [5(1)] accordingly prescribes that along with the return of the turnover relating to any month, the connected declaration should be submitted so as to reach the assessing authority on or before the 25th of the succeeding month. Here is a rule setting out the manner in which the declaration should be furnished to the prescribed authority by the dealer selling the goods." It was considered that the time-limit for filing the declarations should be complied with, as a condition to the eligibility to the lower rate of tax. This view was followed by the same Division Bench subsequently in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Manohar Brothers[1962] 13 S.T.C. 686. The Kerala High Court in Abraham v. Sales Tax Officer[1964] 15 S.T.C. 110., however, took a different view. In that case, tax was Imposed at the higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e thing is to be done, and do not introduce anything from the Act referred to, as to the thing which is to be done or the time for doing it." To the same effect was the judgment of Lord Campbell, C.J., in the Queen's Bench. The judgment of the Kerala High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 404 of 1966*. Their Lordships held: "...the phrase 'in the prescribed manner' in section 8(4) does not take in the time-element. In other words, the section does not authorise the rule-making authority to prescribe a time-limit within which the declaration is to be filed by the registered dealer." On that view, the third proviso to rule 6(1) of the Kerala Rules was declared to be ultra vires section 8(4) read with section 13(3) and (4) of the Central Act. Rule 6(1) of the Kerala Rules is materially ad idem with rule 5(1) of the Madras Rules. It is true the Supreme Court was concerned with the third proviso to rule 6(1) of the Kerala Rules. But the principle that the State Government has no authority under the rule-making power available to it to prescribe time-limit for filing declarations in Form C is applicable to the Since reported as Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rations as prescribed in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner should be filed within a reasonable time. But what will be "reasonable time" in a given case will depend on particular circumstances, and if the defects in the C Form are known before assessment is made, but still the assessee failed to furnish the correct particulars in spite of reasonable time being given to him before assessment is completed, it may be a case for application or the higher rate of tax. But even here, we would not like to lay it down as a rule of law, for, circumstances may exist which may justify extension of the scope of "reasonable time". In the instant case, the defects having been discovered for the first time at the appellate stage, before enhancing the rate applicable, the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the assessee was bound to give an opportunity-indeed such an opportunity was given in this case-for the assessee to furnish the correct particulars to conform with the Rules. Curiously, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, having given the, opportunity to the assessee, declined to accept the rectified C Forms produced by the assessee. In our view, an appeal, after all, is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
