9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e admissible evidence and vital defects in the declarations in form XXIV furnished by the petitioner to justify disallowance of the deductions claimed under section 5(2)(a)(ii), Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in respect of sales for Rs. 19,393-12-0 to Messrs Roy Co. between the 7th January, 1957, and the 23rd February, 1957. The applicant is a registered dealer and had claimed the aforesaid exemptions in respect of sales for the periods mentioned above. At the relevant time section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was as follows: "Section 5. (2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom" (a) his turnover during that period on- (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fatal to the claim. The Commercial Tax Officer has said (a) the declaration forms have not been "duly" filled up which is a statutory obligation. (What he meant was that the declaration forms did not clearly indicate the purposes for which the purchases were made); (b) the selling dealer could not produce any order for sales made or could not produce any challan in support of the delivery of the goods; (c) all payments were made in cash which was a departure from the normal trade practice of paying heavy amounts by cheques; and (d) the dealer was given a chance to produce the orders and the challans but it failed to do so. In the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner made on the 18th September, 1959, the same grounds for disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his is a Bench decision under article 227 of the Constitution. It has been held, inter alia, that where a certificate of registration issued to a registered dealer contemplates that the purpose of purchase might well be either the purpose of manufacture or resale or any of the several alternatives mentioned in the foot-note of that form, the mere non-striking of any of the alternatives in the declaration forms would not be a fatal defect, as all the alternatives taken together, might very well be the purpose of purchase. Obviously, the decision has to be appreciated in the context of the facts presented to the court. Immediately after expressing its views aforesaid at page 198 of the judgment it is stated: "In the present case, there is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not indicate the purpose for which the purchases were being made. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the tax authorities were justified in rejecting the claim for deduction. We now come to the period between the 7th January, 1957, and the 23rd February, 1957. The Commercial Tax Officer has disallowed the claims on the ground that the supporting declaration forms had been issued by the purchasing dealer after cancellation of its registration certificate on the 7th January, 1957. The Assistant Commissioner has examined the bills in question. These are bills Nos. 1510, 1447 and 1232 dated respectively the 23rd February, 1957, the 17th February, 1957, and the 15th January, 1957. In other words, the transactions took place af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
