9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of the case are as follows: The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of foreign liquors. For the period 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the assessee was assessed to sales tax by order dated 23rd November, 1964. It appears that the assessing officer rejected the declarations in certain C forms because they did not contain the number and the date of registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the A.A.C.) of Sales Tax set aside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity was given to the assessee by the assessing officer to rectify the technical mistakes and therefore remanded the case for fresh assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistakes. After remand the assessee filed letters from the respective purchasing dealers in which the date from which their registration certificate was valid was mentioned. The assessing officer accepted this evidence and treating the defects as cured, accepted the C forms and accordingly assessed the tax at the concessional rate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1977] 10 V.K.N. 59. In that case the Sales Tax Officer had rejected certain C forms. The A.A.C. accepted some of them. As regards three forms which did not contain the date of registration of the purchasing dealer, a certificate issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Orai, was filed in which the date of registration of the purchasing dealer was mentioned. The A.A.C. of Sales Tax rejected the evidence by holding that apart from the C forms that had been filed no further evidence could be considered to make good the deficiency in the C forms that were filed by the assessee. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee in that case and remanded the case to the assessing authority for accepting the said C forms as filled on the basis of the letter issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Orai, and to make assessment accordingly. On these facts this Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that regarding the date of registration which was not mentioned in the three C forms originally produced, evidence should have been accepted in the reassessment proceedings. This decision certainly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the department. 4.. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not legally permissible for the Commissioner of Sales Tax to accept the additional evidence produced before him for removing the defects in the said C forms?" 2.. The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, briefly are as follows: The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of foreign liquors. For the period 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the assessee was assessed to sales tax by order dated 23rd November, 1964, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Indore. Though this order did not make a specific mention of the facts, it appears that the assessing officer rejected the declarations in C forms bearing Nos. G 390746 for Rs. 3,272.40, G 955432 for Rs. 265.75, G 955433 for Rs. 3,657.07, A 152106 for Rs. 723.89 and C 638018 for Rs. 2,854.51. These C forms did not contain the number and date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. The assessee filed an appeal against this order and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, by his order dated 13th October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Dayaram Balchand[1973] 31 S.T.C. 249. and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Badri Lal HanumanPrasad of Indore[1979] 44 S.T.C. 479. The Division Bench therefore directed by its order dated 6th December, 1979*, that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. That is how this case came up for hearing before us. 4.. Now, in the instant case, the assessing authority had rejected the declarations in C forms submitted by the assessee on the ground that the number and date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer was not mentioned, without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rectify these defects. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, remanded the case and on remand the defects were removed by the assessee. The real question for consideration therefore is, whether the assessing authority was required to give opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects in the declaration forms submitted by him before proceeding to reject them. If the assessing authority was not required to give any such opportunity, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity to remove the defects in the declaration to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. Denial of such opportunity would mean that even a defect in the declaration arising out of an inadvertent mistake or omission in the declaration could not be cured. Such a construction of section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, would be too technical and is, in our opinion, not warranted by the provisions of that section. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dayaram Balchand[1973] 31 S.T.C. 249., it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the assessing authority ought to give an opportunity to the dealer to explain errors or omissions noticed by the assessing authority in the declarations in form C prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting them as invalid. We respectfully agree with this view. 6.. The learned counsel for the department referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer[1965] 16 S.T.C. 607 (S.C.). and contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, a dealer was debarred from producing evidence to cure the defects in the declarations. Now, the decision in Kedar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
