K I ABRAHAM Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER PONKUNNAM
LAWS(KER)-1963-11-29
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 29,1963

K.I.ABRAHAM Appellant
VERSUS
SALES TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ACRAMAN V. HERMMAN [REFERRED TO]
DY.COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES-TAX V. ABDUL WASIGH AND BROS. [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES,COIMBATORE V. PAREKUTTY HAJI [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,MADRAS V. MANOHAR BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PALANIAPPA MATCH WORKS VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner was assessed to sales tax under section of the Central Sales Tax act (74 of 1956), in respect of his inter-State trade in coconut oil for the year 1959-60, and out of a total turnover of Rs. 2,30,990-5/, tax was imposed at the rate of 1% on Rs. 1,93,346/- and at 7% on the balance, namely, Rs. 37,645/-, on the ground mat the relevant declarations in Form C were not filed before the prescribed authority, the Sales Tax Officer, before 16-2-1961. These were filed before the sales tax Officer only on 8-3-1961 but before the assessment was made, the delay being explained as due to late receipt of the same from the purchaser in Madras. Ex. P-2 is copy of the order of assessment. the petitioner preferred an appeal 10 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a revision pemiun before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural income-tax and Sales tax but these were unsuccessful; Exs. P-3 and P-4 respectively are the orders in appeal and revision. He has moved this Court for quashing the orders, Exts. P-2 P3 and P-4, under Article 226 of the constitution. me first respondent is the Sales tax Officer, ponkunnam, and the second respondent, the Deputy commissioner of agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax, Emakulam, the petition was ordered to be placed before a Full Bench in view of the apparent conflict between two decisions of this court.
(2.)THE point pressed before the sales tax authorities and considered by them was whether the delay in tiling the C Form could be condoned on sufficient cause being shown. Relying on the decision of this Court (n Dy. commissioner of Agricultural income-tax and Sales-tax v. Abdul Wasigh and tiros. , 1962-13 SIC 295 (Ker) it was held that the delay could not be condoned. the point advanced De-tore us was slightly different, i. e. , that the benetit or concession conferred by Section 8 (1) can be taken away under Section 8 (4) only if the dealer failed to furnish C Forms to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and that the dealer cannot be deprived of the benefit by enacting a rule fixing a date for furnishing me C forms, as the expression "the manner prescribed" in Sub-section (4) of the section does not take in the time element. In other words, the argument was that the preserved authority was bound to consider the C Forms, provided the same were furnished before the order of assessment was made.
(3.)IT is useful to extract the relevant provisions of Section 8 and Rule 6 of the central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, as it stood on the date of the assessment.
"8. (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-state trade or commerce-- (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be one per cent of his turnover. xx xx xx xx (4) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-state trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner- (a) a declaration duly filed and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescnoea authority; or (b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duty filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the government. xx xx xx xx rule 6: "6 (1) Every dealer registered under Section 7 of we Act and every dealer liable to pay under the Act shall submit a return of all his transactions including those in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India in Form II together with connected declaration forms so as to reach the assessing authority on or before the 20th of each month showing the turnover for the preceding month and the amount or amounts collected by way of tax together with proof for the payment of tax due thereon under the Act: provided that in cases of delayed receipt of declaration forms, the dealer may submit the declaration forms at any time before the assessment is made provided further that the delay in submitting the declaration forms shall not exceed three months from the date of sale in question: provided also that all declaration forms pending submission of dealers on 2-5-1960 shall be submitted not later than 16-2-1961. XX XX XX XX XX"
The first proviso was added by notification dated 3-1-1958, the second by notification flated 26-4-1960 and the third by notification dated 16-1-1961. The respondents rely on the last proviso according to which declarations in Form C had to be furnished before 16-2-1361.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.