9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1982 filed in the said C.T.A. No. 188 of 1982, by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made his submission only relating to it. The said enhancement petition related to a turnover of inter-State sale of Rs. 1,45,680.31. The assessing authority levied tax at the rate of 10 per cent on it under section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, negativing the claim of the assessee for the concessional rate of 4 per cent tax prescribed under section 8(1) of the said Act, on the ground that the requisite declaration in C forms prescribed under section 8(4)(a) of the said Act read with rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is defective and not valid. The assessee claimed such a concessional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the said appeal partly, the Tribunal also allowed the abovesaid enhancement petition, disagreeing with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and agreeing with the view of the original assessing authority and holding that the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31 were not supported by valid C forms. Aggrieved by the restoration of the original assessment relating to the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31, the present revision has been filed by the assessee. 4.. The reasoning of the assessing authority in holding that the abovesaid C forms were invalid, is as follows: (a) According to the abovesaid section 8(4)(a) read with the abovesaid rule 12, form C declaration should be valid and signed by the purchasing dealers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hasing dealers before receipt of sale bills of the assessee-seller. Admittedly, on the date of signing of the C forms by the purchasing dealers, no sale or purchase has taken place. Thus the C forms furnished in advance by the purchasing dealers, prior to raising of the sale bills by the assessee-seller and prior to the actual sales effected, are not the ones furnished in the manner prescribed in the abovesaid provisions. The purchasing dealers who signed the C forms have also not made the verification in the manner provided. These defects cannot be rectified by way of a subsequent certificate by the buyers, confirming the sale bills and amounts entered in the C forms already furnished. The omission to note the sale bill number and date a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the concessional rate. But the assessee filed fresh C forms only in respect of the above referred to two sales, one for Rs. 57,750 and another for Rs. 10,723.13, out of the abovesaid entire turnover of Rs. 2,14,153.44. With reference to the other inter-State sales, the assessee instead of filing fresh C forms, has furnished certificates from the buyers, confirming the particulars of sale bill numbers, dates and amounts noted in the C forms already furnished by it. In view of the abovesaid Supreme Court decisions, the certificates cannot be accepted for allowing the concessional rate. 5.. As against this elaborate and considered reasoning of the assessing authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner only stated as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not in accordance with the abovesaid provisions of law and that hence not valid. 7.. The learned counsel for the petitioner however argues that by virtue of the abovesaid certificates produced from the purchasing dealers, substantial compliance of the requirements of law is there and that hence the concessional rate of tax should be applied to the abovesaid disputed turnover. But, we are unable to agree with this contention in the light of the above extracted provisions of section 8(4)(a) of the Act and rule 12 of the abovesaid Rules and the above referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., [1965] 16 STC 607 (Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) and [1966] 18 STC 222 (State of Madras v. Radio and E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the point: In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC), State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal and Co. [1967] 20 STC 374 (SC) and the subsequent decisions following that view, it is settled that in order to claim the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, the dealer must furnish a declaration in the prescribed form C in the prescribed manner. Unless that is done, the benefit of the concessional rate claimed by the dealer cannot be given. 9.. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision and hence the revision petition shall stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
