9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner for the aforesaid periods on the ground that there was under-assessment. Petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the third proviso to rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (for short, "the Rules") and seeking to quash the notices. The provision is challenged as beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government under section 13 of the Central Act and arbitrary. 2.. Petitioner obtained "C" forms from the purchasing dealers to avail of concessional rate of tax and produced the same before the assessing officer who accepted the same and allowed the concessional rate of tax. Subsequently, the auditor of the department found that the "C" forms were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the State Act and the Central Act. Section 2(u) of the State Act defines "year" as financial year or accounting year chosen by the assessee. The Central Act refers to the word "year" as the year applicable to the assessee under the State law and where there is no such year applicable, the financial year. 5.. Petitioner followed the calendar year as accounting year. Petitioner states that "C" forms are obtained according to the periods comprised in the calendar year and thus there was no conflict till the third proviso to rule 12(1) was amended in 1975. According to the original proviso, where delivery of goods is spread over different years, it shall be necessary to furnish a separate declaration or certificate in respect of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel stressed that section 13(1)(d) condemplates rules providing for the form and the particulars to be contained in any declaration or certificate. According to him, the requirement regarding different declarations and certificates in respect of goods delivered in separate financial years is not within the ambit of section 13(1)(d). It is said that declaration and certificate of each financial year will have to be submitted to the authority and if the delivery is spread over to two financial years, it would not be possible for the assessee to produce the document before the assessing authority the next financial year. Thus, it is said, the requirement is unworkable and arbitrary. 7.. We are unable to agree with either of these submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y erroneous. Reference is made to Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1277 where it has been observed that any act of the repository power, whether legislative, judicial or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or governing Act or the general principles of the law of the land or is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fairminded authority would ever have made it. These decisions have no application to the present case. 9.. In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 334, the Supreme Court observed that where validity of subordinate legislation is questioned, the court has to consider the nature, objectives and scheme of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or financial year as accounting year, there is no corresponding duty on the rule-making authority to make rules which will be in conformity only with the year adopted by the assessee. If the rule-making authority is of the opinion that separate declarations and certificates should be submitted in respect of the goods delivered in each financial year where delivery is spread over two financial years, that is only reasonable since it is related to the monetary limit of exemption provided by the law and for the convenience of the assessing authority. The fact that the assessee should take care to produce the forms separately in regard to each financial year cannot be said to be unworkable or contrary to statute or arbitrary or unreasonable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk that the above decision has any relevance to the facts of the present case. If there was a clear breach of the requirements of rule or the requirements of the pro forma which escaped notice at the earlier stage, we find no reason why the authority concerned should not attempt reassessment under section 19 of the State Act. The language of section 19 is wide enough to cover such a contingency. 14.. The relevant portion of section 19(1) of the State Act states thus: "Where an assessment has been made under the Act and if for any reason sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under this Act during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
