9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in form C as prescribed by rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, though he filed form E-1. In this application for the issue of a writ, the petitioner claims that under section 6(2) of the Act, filing of form E-1 was enough to entitle the petitioner to claim the exemption and rule 12(3)(ii) which stipulates the filing of form C also is ultra vires as it is inconsistent with section 6(2) of the Act. Sri P. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Subbiah Pillai[1967] 20 S.T.C. 263. , and of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Yakubbhai Hajihakumutdin[1969] 23 S.T.C. 117. in support of the petitioner's contention. Section 6(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the description referred to in section 8(3), (4) the sale must be to a registered dealer, and (5) the seller also must have purchased the goods from a registered dealer. This last requirement is implicit in the proviso. The first and last requirements are met by proving the first or previous sale, and the proviso prescribes the mode of proof of such first or previous sale; the dealer claiming the exemption must produce a certificate in the prescribed manner from the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased. Rule 12(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules has prescribed that the certificate shall be in form E-1 or form E-2. Though the statute itself has prescribed the mode of proving the first and last requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate assessing authority (i) the portion marked 'original' of the form E-1 received by him from the registered dealer from whom he purchased the goods and (ii) the original of the declaration in form C received from the registered dealer to whom he sold the goods." This rule is not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules made by the Central Government. Far from it, it fits neatly into the scheme of the Act and the Rules made by the Central Government as I shall presently show. The objection of the petitioner is to the production of form C. Let us examine what this form C is. Form C is not a form prescribed by the Rules made by the State Government and adopted by the Rules made by the State Government. It is a form prescribed by rule 12 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration in form C. In order to claim the benefit of the exemption under section 6(2) also the dealer has to prove that the goods are of the description referred to in section 8(3). The statute, though it has prescribed the mode of proof for the purpose of section 8(1)(b), it has not prescribed the mode of proof for the purpose of section 6(2). So the Rules made by the State Government have adopted, for this purpose, the mode of proof prescribed by the statute to prove the very thing for the purpose of section 8(1) (b). Rule 12(3)(ii) has prescribed the production of the same form C. Rule 12(3)(ii), therefore, far from being inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made by the Central Government, fits neatly into the scheme of the Act and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
