Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (7) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... registered under the 1941 Act and carries on business of reselling various engineering stores. For the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1980 (hereinafter called "the relevant period") it had submitted returns, but these were not in time and were delayed by about four years. However, payment was made in time of taxes which he thought were due from it. Assessment for the relevant period was made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Howrah, respondent No. 1, on February 6, 1984. At the time of hearing for this purpose the applicant could not produce the declarations in form XXIV and form X. Therefore respondent No. 1 did not give any benefit under section 5(1)(bb) of the 1941 Act. The applicant claims that at this hearing the applicant had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1)(bb) of the 1941 Act. The relevant rule is sub-rule (9) of rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (in short "the 1941 Rules"), which reads as follows: "(9) The declaration in form XXIV or XXIVA shall be produced by a dealer up to the time of assessment under section 11 by the first assessing authority: Provided that if the appellate or revisional authority is satisfied that the dealer concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such declaration within the aforesaid time, that authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing such declaration to be produced within such further time as that authority may permit." 3.. The applicant claims that the declaration forms of the relevant period were misplaced. Thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... production of declaration forms. Therefore, the question of rejecting that prayer does not arise. Appearing for the applicant Shri R.K. Das, Advocate, disputes this contention and submits that the claim had been made. In the order of assessment respondent No. 1 wrote "no claim is allowed in absence of any evidence.............". This observation proves, according to Mr. Das, that there was a claim. Moreover if one examines the gross turnover reported in the return and the amount of tax paid voluntarily, one can easily see that these do not match unless there is a claim for benefit of concessional rates of taxes. Shri Das, therefore, submits that there was a claim which was ultimately rejected in violation of the proviso to rule 27A(9) and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e (9) of rule 27A of the 1941 Rules. Mr. Das, advocate for the applicant, states that misplacement is proved by a simple statement regarding misplacement made by the person who misplaced it, there can be no other proof. According to Mr. Mukhopadhyay, if such misplacement is considered sufficient cause preventing production, then the main stipulation in rule 27A(9), that the declaration shall be produced at the time of assessment by the first assessing authority, becomes so greatly diluted by the proviso as to become meaningless. Anybody failing to produce before the first assessing authority can plead misplacement and get away with it. 6.. We have considered the arguments put forward by both sides. There is no dispute that the declaration .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appears that there is a dispute of fact to be settled, whether cause was shown before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority only says that Shri Samanta fails to explain. What the explanation was he does not mention, nor does he say why he did not consider the explanation sufficient. The appellate authority did not say that the applicant did not explain, he only "fails to explain". It therefore appears that Shri Samanta, authorised representative of the applicant, while appearing before the appellate authority, tried to explain; but the appellate authority thought that he had failed to explain. In the absence of details of the explanation, it is not possible to determine whether the judgment of the appellate authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates