HINDUSTHAN STATIONERY WORKS PVT LTD Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE
LAWS(CAL)-1970-12-11
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 11,1970

HINDUSTHAN STATIONERY WORKS (PVT.) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the following questions have been referred to this court: (i) Whether there are admissible evidence and vital defects in the declarations in form XXIV furnished by the petitioner to justify disallowance of the deductions claimed under Section 5(2)(a)(ii), Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in respect of the sales for Rs. 83,921 to Messrs Roy & Co. prior to 7th January, 1957; (ii) Whether there are admissible evidence and vital defects in the declarations in form XXIV furnished by the petitioner to justify disallowance of the deductions claimed under Section 5(2)(a)(ii), Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in respect of sales for Rs. 19,393-12-0 to Messrs Roy & Co. between the 7th January, 1957, and the 23rd February, 1957.
(2.) The applicant is a registered dealer and had claimed the aforesaid exemptions in respect of sales for the periods mentioned above. At the relevant time Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was as follows: Section 5. (2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom-- (a) his turnover during that period on-- (i) * * * (ii) sales to a registered dealer of goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of such dealer, as being intended for resale by him, or for use by him in the manufacture of goods for sale or for use by him in the execution of any contract, and of containers or other materials for the packing of goods of the class or classes so specified: Provided that in the case of such sales a declaration duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold and containing prescribed particulars on a prescribed form obtainable from the prescribed authority is furnished in the prescribed manner by the dealer who sells the goods.
(3.) It is clear that in order to get a deduction from the "taxable turnover" the sale must be to a registered dealer of specified goods for specified purposes. Moreover, a purchaser has to furnish a declaration satisfying certain conditions laid down in the proviso. In the instant case two types of deductions were claimed. The deduction in respect of Rs. 83,921 was for a period prior to the cancellation of registration of the purchaser. The deduction in respect of Rs. 19,393-12-0 was for a period after cancellation. The taxing authorities have dealt with these two periods separately. In the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer made on the 28th August, 1958, various grounds have been stated as to why the claim for the first period should be disallowed. Some of these grounds appear to us to be fatal to the claim. The Commercial Tax Officer has said (a) the declaration forms have not been "duly" filled up which is a statutory obligation. (What he meant was that the declaration forms did not clearly indicate the purposes for which the purchases were made); (b) the selling dealer could not produce any order for sales made or could not produce any challan in support of the delivery of the goods; (c) all payments were made in cash which was a departure from the normal trade practice of paying heavy amounts by cheques; and (d) the dealer was given a chance to produce the orders and the challans but it failed to do so. In the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner made on the 18th September, 1959, the same grounds for disallowance were advanced. The Assistant Commissioner states further: In order to satisfy myself as to the genuineness of the transactions in question I demanded an inspection of the relevant purchase orders and delivery challans. But the petitioner-dealer could produce neither. Going through the declarations in question I find these were not duly filled up. I notice that the object of purchase was not indicated on the face of the declarations in question. Under the circumstances it is difficult to ascertain whether or not such purchases were in order and covered by the certificate of registration of the dealer....;


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