CALCUTTA IRON MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
LAWS(SC)-1996-2-127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 23,1996

CALCUTTA IRON MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) JUDGMENT
(2.) LEAVE granted. Heard counsel for the parties. Section 4B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 says : "No person shall transport from any railway station, steamer station, airport, post office, or any other place whether of similar nature or otherwise, notified in this behalf by the State Government, any consignment of any notified goods exceeding such quantities and except in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed. Such conditions shall be made with a view to ensuring that there is no evasion of tax by this Act." Sub-section (2) empowers the State Government to prescribe the conditions for regulating transport of notified goods from any place, other than those referred to in sub-section (1) with a view to ensuring that there is no evasion of tax imposed by this Act. Pursuat to the above provisions, rules have been made by the State Government. Rule 89A and in particular sub-rule (2) thereof is relevant for our purpose. It reads : "(2) Where such consignment is despatched from any place within West Bengal and the value whereof exceeds rupees twenty-five thousand- (a) any person transporting such consignment shall carry with him a consignment note or delivery note, sale bill or cash memo or similar document and a written declaration in duplicate duly signed by the consignor or his authorised agent in the form mentioned in the Schedule appended to this sub-rule in respect of such consignment, and shall, on demand by the officer referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 70A, produce the said documents and declaration and the said officer, on being satisfied about the correctness of the documents and the declaration, shall only allow the movement of such quantity of notified goods mentioned in that declaration and conforming to the description given therein and to other documents produced. He shall retain one copy of the declaration and return the second copy on which he shall endorse the date on which the consignment is transported and shall sign, seal and date such endorsement; (b) If the declaration referred to in Clause (a) in respect of any consignment has already been submitted to an officer referred to in the proviso sub-rule (a) of rule 70A any person transporting such consignment shall, on demand by such officer at any subsequent place, produce the countersigned and sealed copy of the aforesaid declaration. JUDGEMENT_537_7_1996Html1.htm
(3.) ACCORDING to Clause (a) of sub-rule (2), a person transporting goods shall carry with him three sets of documents, viz., (i) consignment note or delivery note (ii) sale bill or cash memo or similar document and (iii) a written declaration in duplicate duly signed by the consignor or his authorised agent in the form mentioned in the Schedule to the sub-rule in respect of such consignment. These documents are required to be produced by such transporter on demand by any appropriate officer. The declaration form contained in the sub-rule says that the declaration has to be signed by the consignor or his authorised agent and shall contain the specified particulars. It is this declaration which along with other prescribed documents, a person transporting such goods has to produce as and when demanded by the appropriate officer. We are concerned herein with persons who are dealers in iron and steel. Their case is this : Iron and Steel is taxable at the first point of sale. Iron and steel is manufactured by major manufacturing units. When they sell the same, they pay tax thereon. The appellants are only purchasers and they transport goods purchased by them in the course of their business. They complain that under the rules, an obligation is placed only upon the purchasers/transporters to be in possession of the aforementioned three sets of documents and to produce them whenever demanded by the appropriate officer but no such obligation is placed upon the sellers/conginors. Consequently, the sellers are not issuing the declarations as contemplated by Rule 89A (2). The appellants are, therefore, not in position to produce the declaration when demanded by the authorities, on which account they are being put to harassment and financial loss.;


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