K I ABRAHAM Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER PONKUNNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was assessed to sales tax under section of the Central Sales Tax act (74 of 1956), in respect of his inter-State trade in coconut oil for the year 1959-60, and out of a total turnover of Rs. 2,30,990-5/, tax was imposed at the rate of 1% on Rs. 1,93,346/- and at 7% on the balance, namely, Rs. 37,645/-, on the ground mat the relevant declarations in Form C were not filed before the prescribed authority, the Sales Tax Officer, before 16-2-1961. These were filed before the sales tax Officer only on 8-3-1961 but before the assessment was made, the delay being explained as due to late receipt of the same from the purchaser in Madras. Ex. P-2 is copy of the order of assessment. the petitioner preferred an appeal 10 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a revision pemiun before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural income-tax and Sales tax but these were unsuccessful; Exs. P-3 and P-4 respectively are the orders in appeal and revision. He has moved this Court for quashing the orders, Exts. P-2 P3 and P-4, under Article 226 of the constitution. me first respondent is the Sales tax Officer, ponkunnam, and the second respondent, the Deputy commissioner of agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax, Emakulam, the petition was ordered to be placed before a Full Bench in view of the apparent conflict between two decisions of this court.

(2.) THE point pressed before the sales tax authorities and considered by them was whether the delay in tiling the C Form could be condoned on sufficient cause being shown. Relying on the decision of this Court (n Dy. commissioner of Agricultural income-tax and Sales-tax v. Abdul Wasigh and tiros. , 1962-13 SIC 295 (Ker) it was held that the delay could not be condoned. the point advanced De-tore us was slightly different, i. e. , that the benetit or concession conferred by Section 8 (1) can be taken away under Section 8 (4) only if the dealer failed to furnish C Forms to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and that the dealer cannot be deprived of the benefit by enacting a rule fixing a date for furnishing me C forms, as the expression "the manner prescribed" in Sub-section (4) of the section does not take in the time element. In other words, the argument was that the preserved authority was bound to consider the C Forms, provided the same were furnished before the order of assessment was made.

(3.) IT is useful to extract the relevant provisions of Section 8 and Rule 6 of the central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, as it stood on the date of the assessment.