Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Madanlal Ram Vilas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 365 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1985]60STC341(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentMadanlal Ram Vilas
Appellant AdvocateM.V. Tamaskar, Additional Adv. General
Respondent AdvocateB.L. Nema, Adv.
Cases Referred and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Soubhagmal
Excerpt:
.....set aside. - general sales tax act, 1958 is at the instance of the department to answer the following question of law, namely :whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the assessing authority in its order dated 13th november, 1969 as well as the order dated 12th october, 1970 ? 2. the dealer was assessed to sales tax for the year 1961-62 by the sales tax officer, durg, vide his order dated 29th june, 1964. in this assessment order, the sales tax officer accepted certain c forms submitted by the dealers, even though they were deficient in material particulars, on the basis of letters of the buyers produced by the dealer in which the deficient particulars had been mentioned. after the remand, the sales tax..........order dated 12th october, 1970 2. the dealer was assessed to sales tax for the year 1961-62 by the sales tax officer, durg, vide his order dated 29th june, 1964. in this assessment order, the sales tax officer accepted certain c forms submitted by the dealers, even though they were deficient in material particulars, on the basis of letters of the buyers produced by the dealer in which the deficient particulars had been mentioned. the case was reopened by the sales tax officer under section 19(1) of the m. p. general sales tax act read with section 9(2) of the central sales tax act on the ground that defective c forms were accepted in the order of initial assessment dated 29th june, 1964. by order dated 13th november, 1969, reassessment was made rejecting the defective c forms and.....
Judgment:

J.S. Verma, J.

1. This reference under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 is at the instance of the Department to answer the following question of law, namely :--

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the assessing authority in its order dated 13th November, 1969 as well as the order dated 12th October, 1970

2. The dealer was assessed to sales tax for the year 1961-62 by the Sales Tax Officer, Durg, vide his order dated 29th June, 1964. In this assessment order, the Sales Tax Officer accepted certain C forms submitted by the dealers, even though they were deficient in material particulars, on the basis of letters of the buyers produced by the dealer in which the deficient particulars had been mentioned. The case was reopened by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 19(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that defective C forms were accepted in the order of initial assessment dated 29th June, 1964. By order dated 13th November, 1969, reassessment was made rejecting the defective C forms and additional tax giving rise to an additional demand of Rs. 8,022.07 was levied.

3. The dealer filed a revision to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, against the order of reassessment under Section 39(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. By order dated 18th June, 1970 the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax directed the Sales Tax Officer to admit only such C forms from a particular dealer in which the date and registration number of the purchasing dealer is given in another C form of the same dealer filed in the same case and not those, which did not fall in this category. The case was, therefore, remanded by this order passed in revision to the Sales Tax Officer. After the remand, the Sales Tax Officer found only one C form which satisfied the condition mentioned in the order of remand passed in revision and accepting it as valid reduced the additional demand to the sum of Rs. 6,664.87. The order of the Sales Tax Officer after remand is dated 12th October, 1970.

4. The dealer then preferred first appeal against the order dated 12th October, 1970 passed by the Sales Tax Officer after remand, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Raipur, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 28th February, 1975. However, a further relief of Rs. 365 was given, while dismissing the appeal. It may be mentioned that it was indicated in this order that after the order dated 18th June, 1970 passed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax deciding the question of applicability of Section 19(1) to the case, that question did not remain open as the order passed in revision had become final and that the only surviving question was the extent to which the defective C forms could be accepted in accordance with the directions given in the order passed in revision making the remand to the Sales Tax Officer.

5. The dealer thereafter preferred second appeal to the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the order dated 4th November, 1976 in which it has been held that the power of reopening assessment given by Section 19(1) of the Act was not available in the present case. It is only on this ground that the Tribunal has set aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 passed by the Sales Tax Officer as a result of reassessment. This it is significant that on behalf of the Department, it was urged that the question of availability of power of reassessment under Section 19(1) of the Act was no longer open and the same had been concluded by the order passed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, but the same was brushed aside by the Tribunal by saying merely that it was a question relating to jurisdiction. It is in these circumstances that the aforesaid question has been referred at the instance of the Department.

6. In our opinion, the question of availability of the power under Section 19(1) of the Act was concluded as a result of the order passed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and scope of the appeal before the Tribunal was merely the correctness of the order dated 28th February, 1970 of the Sales Tax Officer, made on remand. The only question for decision therein was the extent to which these defective C forms could be accepted as valid, in accordance with the direction of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax given in his order of remand passed in the revision and no more. The Tribunal has not interfered with the orders under appeal on this point, which alone was within the scope of the appeal, but on the point relating to availability of the power under Section 19(1) of the Act, which was not within the scope of the appeal and which did not arise for decision by the Tribunal. Since, this is the only basis on which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. We may also observe that the construction by the Tribunal of Section 19(1) of the Act permitting reassessment is contrary to the view taken on this point in two decisions of this Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jeewa Khan [1978] 42 STC 95 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Soubhagmal [1979] 44 STC 182.

7. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Department and against the dealer as under :

The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 passed by the assessing authority on reassessment.

No costs.


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