COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. DINESH KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR OF REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a. reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The reference has been made by the Board of Revenue (Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal) at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax referring for our answer the following question of law : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the declarations in annexures II to V were validly and properly rejected and whether it was not legal for the Tribunal to have directed their acceptance ?

(2.) THE relevant facts emerging from the statement of the case are that the assessee Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar of Rewa is registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Act. The assessee carries on business of Government supplier. The period of assessment is the quarter ending 31st March, 1964. In respect of sales made to the Government departments the assessee claimed the benefit of reduced rate of tax under Notification No. 2044-1885-V-ST (as amended by Notification No. 500-136-V-ST/57) issued under Section 12 of the Act. The assessee produced certain certificates issued by the departments concerned in support of its claim before the assessing officer who rejected the certificates on the ground that they were not in proper form and assessed the sales at the normal rate. The assessee then obtained fresh certificates in proper form (annexures II to V) from the Government departments and produced the same in appeal before the Assistant (Appellate) Commissioner of Sales Tax, who refused to admit them on the ground that they ought to have been produced before the assessing officer. The assessee then went up in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board was of the view that the certificates ought to have been admitted by the Assistant Commissioner. The Board, after admitting the certificates, set aside the orders of the assessing officer and the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the case to the former for fresh disposal according to law. Thereafter, on an application made by the Commissioner, the Board made this reference.

(3.) WHEN the reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the department strongly relied on the case of K. M. Chopra and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax 1966 M. P. L. J. 1115. The learned Judges constituting the Division Bench were doubtful about the correctness of the decision in Chopra's case 1966 M. P. L. J. 1115 and, therefore, they referred the case to a Full Bench. This is how the matter has come up before us.