COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX M P Vs. DARASHA MANCHERJEE AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this reference under section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Board of Revenue has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows : The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of foreign liquors. For the period 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the assessee was assessed to sales tax by order dated 23rd November, 1964. It appears that the assessing officer rejected the declarations in certain C forms because they did not contain the number and the date of registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the A. A. C.) of Sales Tax set aside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity was given to the assessee by the assessing officer to rectify the technical mistakes and therefore remanded the case for fresh assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistakes. After remand the assessee filed letters from the respective purchasing dealers in which the date from which their registration certificate was valid was mentioned. The assessing officer accepted this evidence and treating the defects as cured, accepted the C forms and accordingly assessed the tax at the concessional rate. The Commissioner of Sales Tax ordered issuance of notice under section 39 (2) of the Act to the assessee for revising the order of assessment on the ground that once a C form was filed before the assessing authority its validity or otherwise would depend entirely on the manner in which it complied with the provisions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to as the Central Act), and the Rules made thereunder. The assessing authority had neither any power to call for any fresh evidence nor to entertain any corroborative evidence in respect of the declarations. According to the Commissioner of Sales Tax the declarations should, therefore, have been rejected. According to the Commissioner of Sales Tax the order of the assessing authority was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. After hearing the parties the Commissioner passed an order rejecting the C forms and assessing tax in respect of the amounts covered by the said C forms at the full rate. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue which was allowed. At the instance of the department the Board of Revenue has referred the questions of law for the opinion of this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Dayaram Balchand, Hira Mill Road, Ujjain ([1973] 31 S. T. C. 249.), Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Uttam Timber Mart, Balod ([1978] 11 V. K. N. 180.), Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Badri Lal Hanumanprasad ([1979] 44 S. T. C. 479; (1979) 12 V. K. N. 1.) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sardar House, Andherdeo, Jabalpur ([1969] 23 S. T. C. 276; 1971 M. P. L. J. 712. ). In these decisions which are also by the Division Benches of this Court it has been held that evidence can be given to rectify omissions such as the date and number of the registration certificate, etc. , in the declarations in form C filed by the assessee.