9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhya Bharat Notification No. 4, dated the 22nd May, 1950, can be refused if the dealer does not file before the assessing authority the statement in form 'sa' prescribed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Bharat, in his Notification No. 1, dated 14th October, 1950, within the time mentioned in that notification and he does not produce at the time of assessment the declarations in form 'aa' prescribed by the same notifications? (b) Whether the exemption under para 2 of the Government notification referred to in the first question can be granted to a dealer if he does not strictly comply with the requirements of the notification issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Bharat, under Notification No. 1 dated 14th October, 1950, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of (a) nine months from the date of sales in the case of cotton blankets and daris and (b) seven months from the date of sale in the case of other goods." Under section 52 of the Act, the Commissioner was empowered to prescribe certain returns and forms for goods or class of goods exempted from tax under section 4(3) of the Act. Such forms and returns had been duly prescribed. For the registered dealer, who purchased for export cloth from the manufacturer, returns in form KH were required to be furnished every month. Moreover, for every purchase made for the purpose, he was required to give a declaration in form A to the manufacturing seller, who was also required to furnish monthly returns of all such transactions in form C. 3.. In thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons in form 'aa' from the purchasing registered dealers and that he also did not f urnish any of the declarations in form 'aa' before him. Therefore, he held that the dealer was liable to pay tax on the sales of cloth made to the registered dealers. The claim for a deduction of Rs. 27,84,979-2-9 under para 2 of the Government notification was thus rejected." The declarations in form A, which were produced before the Sales Tax Officer on 31st August, 1954, were rejected by that officer before he passed the order of assessment on 29th November, 1954. Being aggrieved, the assessee moved the Commissioner of Sales Tax in revision and prayed that the declarations in form A, which it had tendered earlier before the assessing authority, be acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchasing dealer's certificate of registration as being intended for resale by him in Orissa. No other condition is imposed by the above section. The proviso deals with consequences that follow if the purchasing dealer uses them for purposes other than those specified in his certificate of registration, and directs that, in that event, the price of goods so utilised shall be included in his turnover. Therefore, there is nothing in the section itself that disentitles a selling dealer to a deduction, but if the contingency provided in the proviso occurs, then the price of goods is included in the taxable turnover of the buying dealer. But Mr. Ganapathy Iyer says, be it so, but the rule-making authority is entitled to make rules for carryin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to a deduction." Our attention has, however, been drawn to Chopra and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax[1967] 19 S.T.C. 46. and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. B.P. Dixit[1970] 19 Revenue Nirnaya 242. for the contrary view. There the question turned upon interpretation of section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which provided that the declaration had to be furnished "to the prescribed authority." It was held that the declaration had to be produced before the taxing authority and that too before the assessment. These cases are easily distinguishable because, unlike the case before us, the requirement for such production is in wrought in the relevant statute itself. In our opinion, once the manufacturing dealer claiming ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been raised on the assumption that in view of the requirements of the rules made under section 52 of the Act, production of form A along with the return was obligatory for the purpose of claiming exemption. We have shown that this was not so. When that aspect of the matter is out of the way, the precise question is whether evidence in proof of any fact could be accepted at a late stage if produced before the assessing authority, or before the appellate authority or before the revising authority. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sardar House[1969] 23 S.T.C. 276; [1969] J.L.J. 60. is an authority of this court for the view that such certificates can be admitted in appeal. National Traders (India) v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax[1968] 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
