Skip to content


Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. P.C. Majumdar and Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference No. 699 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1979]44STC154(All)
AppellantCommissioner, Sales Tax
RespondentP.C. Majumdar and Co. Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateR.C. Sharma, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - this turnover was refused exemption from tax on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish c form. the judge (revisions), sales tax, accepted this explanation and held that the assessee did all that he could do to prove that they had sold goods to a registered dealer and so his failure to furnish the c forms would not lead to the drawing of any adverse inference......on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of the central sales tax (u.p.) rules, rule 8-b(4), are mandatory or directory ?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additional revising authority erred in law in granting the exemption 3. rule 8-b of the rules refers to the issue of certificate in form e-i or e-ii and matters incidental thereto. sub-rule (4) says:(4) for the purpose of claiming exemption from tax on his subsequent sale under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the act, the purchasing dealer who effects a subsequent sale to another registered dealer by transfer of documents of title to the goods, shall furnish to the assessing authority, along with his return in form i,--(i) the portion marked 'original' of the certificate in.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. The assessee is a registered dealer. For the assessment year 1967-68, he claimed exemption from sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 20,000, which was the subject-matter of resale by him. This turnover was refused exemption from tax on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish C form. The matter went up before the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. He held that Rule 8-B(4)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules was not mandatory. It was directory. Therefore, the dealer could prove that he had sold goods to a registered dealer by adducing other evidence. The assessee said that he had received information from the Victoria Mills, Kanpur, that they have sent the C forms, but they had been lost in transit. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, accepted this explanation and held that the assessee did all that he could do to prove that they had sold goods to a registered dealer and so his failure to furnish the C forms would not lead to the drawing of any adverse inference. On these reasonings, he held that the turnover of Rs. 20,000 was exempt from payment of tax.

2. At the instance of the Commissioner, the revising authority has referred the following questions for our opinion:

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules, Rule 8-B(4), are mandatory or directory ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Revising Authority erred in law in granting the exemption

3. Rule 8-B of the Rules refers to the issue of certificate in form E-I or E-II and matters incidental thereto. Sub-rule (4) says:

(4) For the purpose of claiming exemption from tax on his subsequent sale under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, the purchasing dealer who effects a subsequent sale to another registered dealer by transfer of documents of title to the goods, shall furnish to the assessing authority, along with his return in form I,--

(i) the portion marked 'Original' of the certificate in form E-I or E-II as may have been received by him, and

(ii) the 'Original' of the declaration form C received from that registered dealer to whom he sold the goods.

No exemption shall be granted if either form E-I or E-II, as the case may be, and the declaration form C have not been furnished:

Provided that if for any reason a dealer is unable to attach a certificate in form E-I or E-II, as the case may be, with his return in form I, he may forward the same later on but not later than the close of the first quarter of the next assessment year or the date on which he is required to produce his accounts for final assessment in respect of the year to which the claim pertains, whichever is earlier.

4. It will be seen that Sub-rule (4) imposes conditions on the fulfilment of which exemption is claimable. Sub-Clause (4)(ii) specifically provides that no exemption shall be granted if the declaration in form C has not been furnished. This is in mandatory language. It does not leave any room for doubt. It does not leave any discretion either with the assessee or with the assessing authority. The proviso places the matter beyond doubt. In the proviso, latitude has been given to the assessee. He may furnish the certificate in form E-I or E-II with his return in form I, or if he is unable to do, he may furnish them later up to the prescribed date. But no such latitude has been given in respect of declaration in form C. All these considerations lead us to the conclusion that the requirement to furnish declaration in form C along with the return in form I, is mandatory. If a dealer does not fulfil this requirement, he is not entitled to claim exemption.

5. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as follows:

(i) The provisions of Rule 8-B(4) of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules are mandatory;

(ii) in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee.

The Commissioner will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.

Reference answered accordingly.


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