9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (8) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed dealer under the said Act having registration certificate No. C.S.-2/1649-A and on the basis thereof carries on business both as a wholesale and retail dealer in textile amongst other commodities. There is also no dispute that the said petitioner duly submitted quarterly returns in the course of its business before the sales tax authorities concerned and has also paid and is paying sales tax in terms of the requirements of law. It appears that for the fourth quarter ending with Chait Sudi 8 of the year 2013 according to Hindi Calendar, Sambat, the said petitioner submitted its return and its gross turnover amounting to Rs. 11,86,970-13-3 as taxable turnover and after all deductions claimed an exemption amounting to Rs. 34,00,220-0-0 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the claim for exemption, then it would be an obligation on the part of the Commercial Tax Officer concerned to allow such claim. It was also submitted that imposition of penalty was excessive, as most of the returns were filed in time. The said respondent No. 3, however, upheld the order of respondent No. 4 and, consequently, rejected the appeal as aforesaid holding, inter alia, that respondent No. 4 was justified in disallowing the said petitioner's claim and holding further that because of the amount of tax involved the penalty cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive and that too when no satisfactory explanation could be furnished as to why the returns in question were not filed in time. From that determination, a revision u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration certificates of the purchasing dealers could not, in law, be a ground for disallowing the claims for exemption and such disallowance on mere suspicion was not only improper, but was not bona fide and was not sufficient. It was also contended that the penalty, as imposed, was excessive and arbitrary too. It appears from the statements, as made in the petition, that it was contended before the Board of Revenue that the petitioner was a wholesaler and payments of goods were received mostly on cash and very small parts in cheques and, as a matter of trade practice, no purchase order or delivery challans were kept by them. That apart, it was also contended and, as recorded hereinbefore, that the subsequent cancellation of the registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said petitioner to be whimsical, capricious and arbitrary inasmuch as it has been stated that the said respondent No. 1 has made the decision without assigning any reason or without applying his judicial mind. This fact has, of course, been categorically denied by the answering respondents in their return to the rule. The petitioner has also contended that the fact that the registration certificates of the purchasing dealers have been cancelled subsequent to the sale to them by the said petitioner could not, in any event, be a ground for refusal to grant the prayer under section 5(2)(a)(ii). This submission has also been denied by the answering respondents and they have contended that the determination in the matter have been duly and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbefore, was granted. In any event, he submitted that the grounds on which the determinations were made and, more particularly, because the transactions were in cash and the purchasers have subsequently gone underground or their registrations have been cancelled could not be a valid ground for disallowing the claim. In support of such submission, Mr. Chakraborty referred to the determination in the case of Jasodalal Ghosal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer[1975] 35 S.T.C. 383. In that case, it has been observed that where an assessee claimed deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act, by filing the declaration form in support of his claim, he has discharged his onus under rule 27A of the said Rules and the onus of proof that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and every transaction of sale, there shall be a purchase order for sale. Mr. Chakraborty further placed reliance on the unreported judgment dated 1st September, 1975, in Civil Rule No. 7836(W) of 1973, wherein Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., has followed the determination as referred to hereinbefore and has observed that the disallowance of claim on the ground that subsequent to the transaction and issue of the declaration form the registration of the purchasing dealers with whom the petitioner had transactions had been cancelled would not be a proper ground for rejection or non-consideration of a claim under section 5(2)(a)(ii). The facts of the present case fit in with all force with the facts of the earlier determination, excepting the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
