9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal to have directed their acceptance?" 2.. The relevant facts emerging from the statement of the case are that the assessee Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar of Rewa is registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Act. The assessee carries on business of Government supplier. The period of assessment is the quarter ending 31st March, 1964. In respect of sales made to the Government departments the assessee claimed the benefit of reduced rate of tax under Notification No. 2044-1885V-ST (as amended by Notification No. 500-136-V-ST/57) issued under section 12 of the Act. The assessee produced certain certificates issued by the departments concerned in support of its claim before the assessing officer who rejected the certificates on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes of official use only against a certificate in writing in the appended form". The appendix to this notification sets out the form of certificate. The notification does not make it a condition of the grant of benefit of the reduced rate of tax that the assessee must produce the certificates before the assessing officer. 5.. No provision in the Act or the Rules was brought to our notice which requires that the certificates of the nature referred to in the notification must be produced before the assessing officer and that they cannot be admitted by the appellate authorities. An appellate authority under the Act can make "such further inquiry as it may think fit" before disposing of the appeal. The relevant provision in this matter is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they were not in the proper form, the assessee applied and obtained fresh certificates from the departments which were produced before the Assistant Commissioner in appeal. There was no fault on the part of the assessee, who all along acted in good faith and with due diligence in the matter of obtaining and producing the certificates. In the circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner was not right in rejecting the certificates produced before him and the Board was right in directing their admission. 6.. The case of K. M. Chopra and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax[1967] 19 S.T.C. 46; 1966 M.P.L.J. 1115. on which the department relied is entirely distinguishable. That was a case relating to section 8(4) of the Central Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the assessing authority. Reference was made by him to rule 20. But that rule does not refer to the certificates prescribed by the notification under consideration. In the absence of any provision that the certificates can be filed only before the assessing authority, it cannot be held that the appellate authority is debarred from admitting the certificates in appeal. Section 38(5) of the Act empowers the appellate authority to make 'such further inquiry as it may deem fit'. These words confer wide discretion on the appellate authority to admit documents which are relevant and which the dealer in spite of his best efforts could not produce before the assessing authority. Reliance was placed by the learned Government Advocate on K.M. Chop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
