9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authority which was the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax. There, two certificates were produced issued by the Director General, Supplies and Disposals, which are dated 24th October, 1972, and 18th December, 1972. These certificates were to the effect that the D forms in question covered despatches of cotton waste from Delhi. The appellate authority did not accept the assessee's claim and dismissed the appeal. A revision against the order was also dismissed. A second revision under the Act was heard by the Financial Commissioner, wherein it was contended that the D forms had now been duly corrected and were with the dealer. It was also contended that the Central Sales Tax Act covered a dealer carrying on business all over India, and therefore, the mention of "Bombay" instead of "Delhi" did not make any difference in the form. It was also stated that amended D forms had since been obtained which should have been taken on record. The learned Financial Commissioner rejected this contention. The position taken by the Financial Commissioner was a simple one. He held that valid D forms had not been filed before the assessing authority and in the absence of those D forms, the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on that order-sheet which is annexure D to the writ petition. It has been urged that a number of adjournments were granted as the D forms were not complete. Those adjournments were from 13th March, 1970, onwards. On 13th March, 1972, the D forms were actually produced. It was then stated that the D forms were defective as not applicable to the Delhi firm and they were therefore rejected. The order states: "The firm wanted time for the explanation of D forms which was rejectedas enough adjournments-Shri Bhasin requested to sign the order sheet." The case of the assessee in the writ is that since the adjournments had resulted in the filing of the D forms, it was incumbent on the Sales Tax Officer to grant further time to the assessee to rectify the defects, or to give an explanation regarding the defects and the Sales Tax Officer acted wrongly in closing the case and passing the assessment order. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Dayaram Balchand, Hira Mill Road, Ujjain [1973] 31 STC 249. At the hearing of the case, we were of the view that we would normally have gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was purchasing goods in Delhi and reselling them outside the territory of Delhi. This High Court had in Fitwell Engineers v. Financial Commissioner Delhi [1975] 35 STC 66 held that section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applicable to Delhi, operated only when goods were resold inside Delhi. If the assessee sold the goods outside Delhi, then it was a "utilisation" otherwise than in accordance with the purpose for which they had been purchased. In such a case the goods were liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii). The decision of the Supreme Court, however, was that it did not matter if the purchasing party sold the goods in Delhi or outside Delhi and a resale by the dealer outside Delhi was also a resale by him. Many of the points involved in that case are not appropriate to the present case and need not be examined by us. However, there are some points which have some relevance. Firstly, the court examined the words "resale", "sale" and "by him" to hold that the sale by the purchasing party made outside the State was also a "sale" by him or a "resale" by him. The words "by him" were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as necessarily to issue the forms in the name of the seller. The purchaser is in fact not concerned with the place from where the goods come. He is only concerned with the identity of the seller. The seller happens to be M/s. C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., and not M/s. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, or M/s. C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. It would appear that the word "Bombay" occurring in the D forms only gives the address and nothing more. The analysis just made, which is based on the reasoning contained in the Supreme Court's judgment quoted earlier, brings into focus the real controversy in the present case. The applicant in the present reference has been described as M/s. C. Jairam Private Ltd., 42, D.L.F., Industrial Area, New Delhi. This is a private limited company which has only one identity. It is the same company which does business both at Bombay as well as at Delhi. It may be that for convenience of reference, the sales tax authorities may call the assessee M/s. C. Jairam Pvt. Ltd., with the addition of the word "Bombay" or the addition of the word "Delhi", as the case may be, for application of the relevant sales tax law at Bombay or Delhi. Nevertheless, the assessee in each case woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddress of the company at Bombay and not the place at which the form is to be used. The applicability of the D forms does not depend on the address given, but depends on the place where the sale is included in the taxable turnover. In the words, we come to the conclusion that the original forms were not defective. We can now answer the three questions referred to us as follows. On the first question, we would hold in the negative to say that the notified authority was not justified in rejecting the D forms because they mention Bombay in place of Delhi. In fact, this is not to be treated as part of the form, but as part of the address. Turning to the second question, we hold that the appellate or the revisional authorities were not justified in refusing to entertain the certificates or corrected D forms. As we have already answered the first question in the negative, this question would not have survived, but the corrected D forms would serve to focus attention of the appellate or the revisional authority, as the case may be, on the correct position, and therefore, we would answer this question also in the negative. Turning now to the third question, we would hold that the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
