MISRA, J. - (1.) THE following questions have been referred to this court by the Sales Tax Tribunal, under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act : " (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in allowing the concessional rate of tax on the basis of the declaration Form C, No. 656707, dated 22nd September, 1962, obtained from the purchasing dealers ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was competent to allow additional evidence to prove the correct declaration Form C mentioned above ?" The facts leading to this reference may be stated in brief. The opposite party was assessed to sales tax for the quarter ending 30th September, 1962, under rule 12 (2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The opposite party effected inter-State sales and obtained a declaration in Form C from the purchasing dealer. Both the opposite party and the purchasing dealer were registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. The declaration form produced before the Sales Tax Officer contained the correct registration number of the purchasing dealer, but the date of registration was wrongly given therein as 30th October, 1962, the correct date being 30th November, 1961. As a wrong date was given in the declaration form, it was not accepted as valid and the opposite party was not allowed the exemption of paying at the concessional rate of one per cent. In appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax the opposite party supplied another wrong registration number; he also did not supply the correct date of registration. The order of the Sales Tax Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. When the matter came up before the Sales Tax Tribunal the opposite party produced a letter from the Sales Tax Officer, Broach, in Gujarat, that the correct date of registration was 30th November, 1961. The learned Tribunal was of opinion that it was open to him to admit the letter of the Sales Tax Officer, Broach, by way of additional evidence. He accordingly held that the correct date of registration having been supplied, the opposite party was entitled to the exemption claimed. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the State of Orissa asked for a reference. That is how the matter has come before us.
(2.) BEFORE examining the questions in issue, it would be appropriate to refer to section 8 (1) (2) and (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, whereunder the exemption is claimed. Section 8 (1) as it stood during the relevant period - omitting portions which are immaterial - runs thus : " (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (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. " Section 8 (2) lays down : " (2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b) in the case of goods other than declared goods, shall be calculated at the rate of seven per cent. , or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher; and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law. " Sub-section (4) says : " (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade in commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner - (a) a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. " On an analysis of the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that the exemption claimed under section 8 (1) would (sic) be admissible unless the conditions prescribed in sub-section (4) are satisfied. That sub-section clearly lays down that the selling dealer should furnish to the assessing officer a declaration duly filled and signed by the purchasing dealer and that the declaration form shall contain the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. The form prescribed is Form C. It contains three similar declarations : one is the original, the second is the duplicate and the third is the counterfoil. This form has been prescribed under rule 12 (1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. A note has been appended at the foot of the form that the original is to be furnished to the prescribed authority, i. e. , the assessing officer, the duplicate is to be retained by the selling dealer, and the counterfoil is to be retained by the purchasing dealer. A similar provision is made in rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The form contains various headings, against which entries are to be filled up. These are : name of issuing State, office of issue, date of issue, name of the purchasing dealer to whom issued, registration certificate number and date from which registration is valid. Under section 8 (4) of the Act all these particulars must be filled up by the purchasing dealer before the original is produced before the assessing officer for grant of exemption.
(3.) AS has already been indicated in the narration of facts, the date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer was wrongly given as 30th December, 1962, though the correct date is 30th November, 1961. The opposite party produced a letter from the Sales Tax Officer, Broach, giving the correct date, and wanted to utilise it to fill up the lacuna in the declaration form. The Tribunal allowed the exemption on the basis of this letter.;