Skip to content


J.K. Mullick Vs. the State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 82 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1973]30STC443(Mad)
AppellantJ.K. Mullick
RespondentThe State of Madras
Appellant Advocate C. Venkatraman, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K. Venkataswami, the First Assistant Government Pleader (Tax)
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredGordon Woodroffe & Co. v. State of Madras
Excerpt:
- .....madras general sales tax act. it is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted declarations in form xvii as required under the rules before the actual order of assessment was passed. but the assessing authority chose to reject the same on the ground that the original declaration forms filed within the time were defective, but the revised declaration forms filed were beyond time. this view has also been upheld by the appellate authority as well as by the tribunal on the ground that the declarations in form xvii have to be filed along with the monthly returns as per rule 22(5) of the madras general sales tax rules, and that, in this case, the correct declarations in form xvii having been filed later, they could not be taken into account. but, we find, the decision of this court in.....
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. The question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted declarations in form XVII as required under the Rules before the actual order of assessment was passed. But the assessing authority chose to reject the same on the ground that the original declaration forms filed within the time were defective, but the revised declaration forms filed were beyond time. This view has also been upheld by the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal on the ground that the declarations in form XVII have to be filed along with the monthly returns as per Rule 22(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, and that, in this case, the correct declarations in form XVII having been filed later, they could not be taken into account. But, we find, the decision of this court in Gordon Woodroffe & Co. v. State of Madras [1968] 21 S.T.C. 120 specifically holds that the words 'in the prescribed mariner' in the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act do not carry with them a power to make a rule prescribing a time-limit for filing the declaration and that, there being nothing in the proviso to Section 3(3) to indicate that the declaration forms should be filed within a prescribed time, an assessee could not be denied the benefit of the concessional rate of tax under Section 3(3) on the ground that the filing of the declaration forms was not along with the returns as contemplated by Rule 22(5) of the Rules. The facts of this case squarely come within the principle laid down in the case. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of tax under Section 3(3) of the Act, based on the declarations filed by him in form XVII before the assessing authority. But, as the said declaration forms have not been verified by any of the authorities for finding out whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 3(3) and if so, to what extent, it has become necessary to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The tax case is, therefore, allowed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.


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