DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES COIMBATORE Vs. PAREKUTTI HAJEE SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of the turnover of Rs. 53,742 returned by the assessee respondent, Rs. 34,560 was covered by, C forms. The balance of the turnover was not covered by c forms and the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, accordingly assessed this latter part of the turnover at seven per cent under the central Sales-tax Act. An appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate assistant Commissioner, before whom the assessee admitted that the C forms relevant to the turnover of Rs. 19000 and odd assessed at seven per cent had been received only after the final assessment was over. The final assessment by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in this case was on 15th June 1950, and the relevant forms were produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 27th July 1960. No explanation was given before the appellate authority for failure to produce these C forms earlier. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner therefore took the view that the transactions covered by this turnover of Rs. 19000 and odd had to be treated as sales made to unregistered dealers and confirmed the levy of tax on this turnover at seven per cent.

(2.) ON the further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal took note of the fact that contradictory versions were given by the assessee for his failure to submit the C forms along with the return, but nevertheless thought that as the C forms had been submitted before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that officer could have accepted these C forms and that there was no justification by him to hold that the sales would be deemed as those made to unregistered dealers in the face of the C forms now made available to him. The Tribunal proceeded to condone the delay in submitting the C forms and directed the turnover covered by them to be assessed at one per cent instead of at seven per cent.

(3.) THE State is the petitioner, and the point that has been raised is that the acceptance of the C forms filed in the circumstances stated is not in accordance with the law. It is contended by the State that there is a specific time limit fixed in the rules and that there are no provisions which enable the Departmental officers or the Tribunal to condone the delay in the submission of the C forms and that there is in fact no discretion given to these officers to condone such delays.