MUTHUSWAMY REDDIAR AND SONS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act (for short, referred to as the Act) and he challenges the inclusion in his turnover of certain amounts which represent sales effected, amounting to Rs. 20,857.75 between 16-8-1962 and 31-3-1963, to dealers in Pondicherry. According to the assessee, these sales were entitled to concession in the matter of sales tax while the assessing authority has taxed him at the full rate of 7% as against a reduced rate of 1%.

(2.) Certain facts require to be stated to appreciate the contentions raised in this case. Pondicherry became part of India on 16-8-1962. The Central Sales Tax Act was extended to Pondicherry and the other French possessions in India on 15-1-1963. It was actually brought into force in these territories on 3-6-1963. The petitioner, who is a dealer in coconut oil in Kerala, was selling goods to dealers in Pondicherry. At the time be was assessed to sales tax for the year ending with 31-3-1963 he put forward the contention that sales to dealers in Pondicherry were in the course of export and as such he was totally free from payment of any sales tax in regard to those sales. He was greeted with treacherous success in this plea because the Sales Tax Officer accepted the contention and absolved him from payment of sales tax and, as will be explained presently, he did not bother to produce the declarations which would have fetched him concessional benefits. Later on, however, the officer sent him a notice on the basis that a reassessment was called for, the turnover representing the sale to Pondicherry dealers having been wrongly omitted. The earlier assessment was on 29-11-1963, but the later proceedings were started on 6-10-1965. The assessee contended before the taxing authority that although the sales were inter State sales he had produced the requisite declaration forms for sales amounting to Rs. 18,539.05 even at the time of completion of the original assessment but that the then officer had returned these forms treating the sales to Pondicherry dealers as export sales. He, therefore, pleaded that he was entitled to the benefit of a Notification issued on 23-2-1963 whereunder a concessional rate of 1% alone was leviable. The officer, however, negatived this plea on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the dealer had produced the declaration forms within the time contemplated in the aforesaid Notification. The App. Asst. Commissioner, to whom an appeal was made in vain, affirmed the order and before the Tribunal the same fate followed. Hence this Revision Petition.

(3.) Many contentions were raised here and long arguments were addressed, but we are sorry to say that there are no dividends accruing therefrom to counsel for the petitioner. He had argued that S.8(5) of the Act, under which the Notification dated 23-2-1963 was promulgated, did not apply to the case at all and that it was really governed by S.8(4) of the Act. He next contended that the Notification, in so far as it fixed a time limit of 3 months from the end of the year of assessment for production of declarations, was invalid and, therefore, he was entitled to produce these declarations even later. The refusal of relief on the score that his production of declaration forms was belated was, therefore, illegal. Finally, it was also stated that the Government of India, realising the practical difficulties faced by dealers in the various States, who sold goods to Pondicherry dealers, had issued certain directives to extend the concessional rate even though compliance with the production of C. forms and declarations had not been made.