Skip to content


Madurai Mudaliar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.T.R.P. Nos. 135, 136 and 137 of 1962-63, S.T.A. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1963
Judge
Reported in(1964)1MysLJ508; [1964]15STC900(Kar)
ActsMysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 12(3); Central Sales Tax Act - Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4); Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957 - Rule 16
AppellantMadurai Mudaliar and Sons
RespondentCommissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore
Appellant AdvocateK.S. Ramadas, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG.B. Kulkarni, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....before the assessment orders were made. in view of the failure of the assessee to produce the 'c' forms, the commercial tax officer, while accepting the returns made by him, refused to give him the concession provided under section 8(1) of the central sale tax act. that section deals with cases where either no return is submitted or the return submitted is incorrect or incomplete and the assessing authority assessed the assessee on the basis of best of judgment. not did the assessing authority proceed to assess the assessee on the basis of best of judgment. further, as mentioned earlier, in the instant case, the assessing authority had not proceeded to assess on the basis of best of judgment. in these circumstances, the contention that the assessments impugned in these proceedings are..........by the order of the commercial tax officer, the assessee took up the matter in appeal to the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes. before the deputy commissioner, the necessary 'c' forms were produced. the deputy commissioner accepted those forms and allowed the assessee the concession asked for. 4. the commissioner of commercial taxes suo motu called for the papers under his revisional powers, set aside the orders of the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes and restored those of the commissioner tax officer holding that the deputy commissioner was not competent to receive the 'c' forms in appeal. 5. we do not think that sub-section (3) of section 12 is applicable to the facts of the present case. that section deals with cases where either no return is submitted or the return.....
Judgment:

Hegde, J.

1. These appeals are filed by a common assessee. They raise a common question of law, that question being whether the assessee was entitled to a notice under section 12(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, to be hereinafter called 'the Act' read with rule 16(b) framed under that Act before assessment.

2. The material facts of the case are as follows : In respect of the assessment years with which we are concerned in these cases, the assessee submitted his returns on 31st December, 1958. According to his returns, a portion of his turnover related to sales in the course of inter-State trade coming within the purview of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act but he failed to produce the 'C' Forms as required by sub-section (4) of that section. He failed not only to produce the 'C' Forms along with his returns but he also failed to produce them before the assessment orders were made. In view of the failure of the assessee to produce the 'C' Forms, the Commercial Tax Officer, while accepting the returns made by him, refused to give him the concession provided under section 8(1) of the Central Sale Tax Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, the assessee took up the matter in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the necessary 'C' Forms were produced. The Deputy Commissioner accepted those forms and allowed the assessee the concession asked for.

4. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes suo motu called for the papers under his revisional powers, set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and restored those of the Commissioner Tax Officer holding that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to receive the 'C' Forms in appeal.

5. We do not think that sub-section (3) of section 12 is applicable to the facts of the present case. That section deals with cases where either no return is submitted or the return submitted is incorrect or incomplete and the assessing authority assessed the assessee on the basis of best of judgment. In the instant case, returns were submitted. Those returns were not found to be either incorrect or incomplete by the assessing authority; not did the assessing authority proceed to assess the assessee on the basis of best of judgment.

6. Sri Ramadas, the learned counsel for the appellant, is not right in his contention that the non-submission of the 'C' Forms along with the assessee's returns amounted to making incomplete returns. Under rule 6(b) of the Rules framed under the Act the assessee should submit his 'C' Forms either with the returns or at any time before the final assessment is made. Hence it cannot be said that a return which is unaccompanied by 'C' Forms is an incomplete return. Further, as mentioned earlier, in the instant case, the assessing authority had not proceeded to assess on the basis of best of judgment. In these circumstances, the contention that the assessments impugned in these proceedings are invalid as they were made without any notice under section 12(3) of the Act has to fail. Our view in this regard finds support from the decisions of the Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Pare Kutti Hajee Sons ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 680) and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division v. Manohar Brothers ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 686), and the decision of the Kerala High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. A. M. Abdul Wasigh & Bros. ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 295). We do not think that the decision of the Kerala High Court in Palaniappa Match Works v. The State of Kerala ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 904) bears on the point under consideration. That being so, we have not examined the correctness of that decision.

7. In deciding these cases, we have not gone into the question as to whether an assessing authority should or should not give reasonable time to an assessee to produce the 'C' Forms before making the final assessment, as in these cases the assessee was clearly guilty of laches. As mentioned earlier, he submitted his returns on 31st December, 1958, and the final assessments were made only on 30th March, 1960. He had sufficient time to produce the 'C' Forms, but yet he has failed to produce them. It is not the assessee's case that he requested for any further time for producing the 'C' Forms and the assessing authority refused to grant him the time prayed for.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss these appeals. The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondent (one set). Advocate's fee Rs. 100.

9. Appeals dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //