JANARTHANAM, J. - (1.) DESIRABLE it is to pen down a common order, in all these actions, inasmuch as the point involved for consideration is one and the same relatable to the assessee - M/s. Agfa -Gavert India Ltd., having their place of business at door No. 611, Anna Salai, Madras -6, relatable to four assessment years, viz., 1981 -82, 1982 -83, 1983 -84 and 1985 -86 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956) (for short "the CSTA").
(2.) THE assessee -dealers in photographic goods, it is said, effected inter -State sales to dealers in Andhra Pradesh against the issue of "C" forms. Originally, assessment orders, it is said, were passed by the assessing officer, on the basis of "C" forms furnished by the assessee -dealers, giving the benefit of concessional rate of tax to them. Cause of action arose for the revision of assessments for the aforesaid assessment years. On verification, it was found that the purchasing dealers at Andhra Pradesh furnished "C" forms for the purchases effected by them issued to other dealers, in rather a bid to avoid the tax being paid on local sales effected by them. In other words, the purchasing dealers were stated to have misused "C" forms issued to the other dealers in effecting inter -State purchases from the assessee -dealers. The assessing officer therefore revised the assessment orders under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959) (for short "the TNGSTA") and subjected the inter -State sales turnover exigible to tax at the appropriate rate and thereby deprived the assessee -dealers of the concessional rate of tax. The turnovers refixed by the assessing officer for the various assessment years are as below :Assessment year Turnover determined Rs. 1981 -82 62, 29, 518 1982 -83 59, 13, 138 1983 -84 61, 58, 725 1985 -86 88, 70, 251 The aggrieved assessee -dealers filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, Madras -108 and the appeals so filed ended in dismal failure. The matter did not stop there. The assessee -dealers further filed appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras -104 (for short, "the Tribunal") and the Tribunal, in turn, also dismissed all the appeals, giving rise to the present actions - Tax Case (Revision) Nos. 1458 to 1461 of 1992. From the pith and substance of the submissions of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee -dealers and Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) representing the Revenue, the point that emerges for consideration is as to :
(3.) WHETHER the assessee -dealers - selling dealers, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, would be deprived of the benefit of the concessional rate of levy of tax in respect of inter -State sales effected to certain registered dealers outside the State, for the simple reason that those purchasing dealers furnished to the assessee -dealers "C" forms issued to the other dealers by the tax authorities ? The point : It is not as if the question now posed for consideration in these actions does arise for the first time before us. The plain fact is that such a question did arise for consideration anterior in point of time, on many occasions, before the superior courts of jurisdiction - High Courts and Supreme Court - and the decisions emerging from such courts, if related here, we rather feel that the question posed for consideration in the instant cases is capable of being solved, with ease and grace and without any difficulty whatever.(i) In State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. what their Lordships of the Supreme Court said as relatable to the obligations of the selling dealer getting reflected at page 233 reads as under : "Indisputably the seller can have in these transactions no control over the purchaser. He has to rely upon the representations made to him. He must satisfy himself that the purchaser is a registered dealer, and the goods purchased are specified in his certificate but his duty extends no further. If he is satisfied on these two matters, on a representation made to him in the manner prescribed by the Rules and the representation is recorded in the certificate in form "C" the selling dealer is under no further obligation to see to the application of the goods for the purpose for which it was represented that the goods were intended to be used. If the purchasing dealer misapplies the goods he incurs a penalty under section 10. That penalty is incurred by the purchasing dealer and cannot be visited upon the selling dealer." (ii) In Hukum Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India, what their Lordships of the Supreme Court said, as relatable to the exercise of power by certain authorities in a certain way in paragraph 18 (at page 794) is relevant for our present purpose and it reads as under : "18. It is well -settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided, will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice ................" (iii) In Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax what their Lordships of the Supreme Court said in the paragraph at pages 419 -420 is relevant and the same reads as under : ;