9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price of Rs. 8,056 to another registered dealer without charging sales tax from him. The accounting period is 22nd October, 1968, to 9th November, 1969. During the assessment proceedings, the dealer-assessee claimed that sale price of cotton seeds should not be included in the taxable turnover as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. This was so claimed by him on the ground that be had sold the cotton seeds to the purchasing dealer after obtaining declaration from him in form S.T. 17 that he will sell the cotton seeds within the State of Rajasthan. The dealer-assessee did not produce form S.T. 17 marked "original" or "duplicate" but only produced a true copy of form S.T. 17 on plain paper. The assessing authority included the sale price of cotton seeds amounting to Rs. 8,056 in the dealer-assessee's taxable turnover and taxed it at 3 per cent amount being Rs. 241.68, vide assessment order dated 30th September, 1970. An appeal was filed by the dealer-assessee. He also submitted an affidavit and the certificate from the purchasing dealer M/s. Nemichand Shantilal. It was declared therein that cotton seeds were purchased for resale in Rajasthan against form S.T. 17 and that the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 15(1) of the Act was filed by the assessing authority before the Board and as it was not disposed of within 180 days from the date of its filing as aforesaid, this application under section 15(3A) of the Act was filed. This application under section 15(3A) of the Act was pending on 1st May, 1985, in this Court. In view of the provisions contained in section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) (for short "the Amendment Act" herein), it has to be treated as a revision under section 15 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act. Under section 15 of the Act in revision question of law arising out of the order can be considered. We have treated this application as a revision. We have heard Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the assessing authority. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the dealer-assessee. The question of law involved is whether the Board was right in this case in upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, by which the levy of tax was deleted on the turnover of Rs. 8,056 despite the fact that "original" and/or "duplicate" of form S.T. 17 were not filed with the return as the same are sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sub-rule (1) to another dealer shall in respect of such claim, produce before the assessing authority the portion marked 'original' of the declaration received by him from the purchasing dealer. The assessing authority may in his discretion or in case of loss of the original foil of the declaration may direct the selling dealer to produce for inspection or record the portion of the declaration marked 'duplicate'." The contention of the learned counsel for the assessing authority is that it is a mandatory requirement of rule 25C(1) that the dealer-assessee should have submitted the declaration from the purchasing dealer in form S.T. 17 with the return. A discretion has been given to the assessing authority to receive the declaration in form S.T. 17 marked "duplicate". The assessing authority has also been empowered in the case of loss of the "original foil" of the declaration to direct the selling-dealer to produce for inspection or record the portion of the declaration marked "duplicate". In this case, contended by the learned counsel for the assessing authority, that neither the "original" nor the "duplicate" of the declaration was produced at any point of time by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment given in support of the view by the Apex Court of the country was that the provisions prescribing the exemption are to be construed strictly. A contention was raised in that case on behalf of the assessee that various attempts were made to get the duplicate forms of declaration from the dealer but on account of the circumstances over which it had no control and because of the unhelpful and hostile attitude of the Commercial Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the said dealer functioned, it was not able to furnish the duplicate forms, for, all the declarations that were lost. In this connection, it was observed that section 21A of the aforesaid Act cannot be availed of by a dealer who loses the declaration forms issued to him by registered dealer for the purpose of asking the Commercial Tax Officer to summon the dealers to produce the necessary documents in order to prove that they had issued the declaration forms to him. Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co.'s case [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC) clinches the issue before us. In this case, the Board in the special appeal, as stated above, observed that rule 25C(7) of the Rules does not envisage a situation where both the original and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
