1967 (6) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner he received them but declined to rely on them on the ground that they were filed out of time. This ground was maintained by the Tribunal In the further appeal filed before it by the assessee. He claimed that the entire turnover related to second sales of goods by transfer of documents during inter-State movement of goods. He also as an alternative sought the benefit of the concessional rate under section 8(1), but produced C Forms in relation to 29 transactions of the value of Rs. 2,68,426.08. The concessional rate was not allowed because, according to the assessing authority, they were not filed within the time prescribed by rule 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957. But the assessee though failed before the Appellate Ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oviso and section 13(4), the State Government has framed the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957. Rule 5(1) requires E-I Forms pertaining to subsequent inter-State sales to be filed along with the monthly return by the 25th of each month. The requirement as to filing of E-I Forms is reiterated in rule 9-B(2), though here no timelimit for filing is stated. On the question whether in exercise of the rule-making power under section 8(4) a time-limit for filing C Forms could be prescribed, there was difference of opinion among the High Courts, this Court being of the view that if the timelimit prescribed was not complied with, the benefit of section 8(1) would not be available. The language of section 8(4) in the matter of conferment of rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hem, and if they were in order, given the exemption under section 6(2), on the view that the assessing authority ought to have given a reasonable time to the assessee to file the forms, but it unjustifiably declined to give the indulgence he was entitled to. In our opinion, the contention has force. It is true, as has been held by the Supreme Court in another context, that the E-I Forms should be filed within a reasonable time. But where an assessee in response to a show cause notice from the department appears and makes a reasonable request for time to file these forms, but all the same, time is unjustifiably refused, we are of the view that it is competent for and is within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in exerc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X