M/S VIJAYAMOHINI JILLS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a company. It is an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Revenue is the respondent herein We are concerned with the assessment year 1975 -76. In computing the total taxable turnover, a sum of Rs. 3,71,169.70, representing the amount in respect of stock transfer, was added by the assessing authority to the taxable turnover, on the ground that the assessee failed to produce 'F' Forms. It was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales -lax (Appeals). In second appeal, at the instance of the assessee, the orders of the authorities below, on the above aspect, were affirmed, by order dated 19 -9 -1986. The assessee has come up in revision. We heard counsel for the revision -petitioner, Mr. M. Ramachandran, as also counsel for the Revenue, Mr. N. N. Divakaran Pillai. It is common ground that the petitioner -assessee effected a transfer of goods to the U. P. Depot, the total of which during the relevant assessment year amounted to Rs. 3,71,169.70, All the statutory authorities took the view that the transfer to the U.P. Depot was not proved with necessary 'F' Forms. The plea of the assessee was that there was only a stock transfer to its Depot and there was no sale and that it will be evident, on a perusal of the relevant records like delivery notes, invoices, agreement, statements of account bills issued at the U. P. Depot and the assessment order under the U P, Sales Tax Act, etc. It was not accepted. The authorises took the view, that under Section 6A. (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, it is a mandatory requirement that 'F' Forms should be furnished to prove that the transfer of goods to the Depot in U. P. was otherwise than by way of sale.

(2.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether the filing of 'F' Forms is a mandatory requirement under Sec. 6A (1) of the C.S.T. Act? In order to understand the scope of the relevant statutory provision, it will be useful to quote Sec. 6A(1) and 6A (2) of the C. S. T. Act.

(3.) IT is interesting to note that the Government of India has addressed a communication, dated 22nd January,' 1974, to the Revenue Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territories stating that the furnishing of declaration in Form 'F' for claiming non -liability to Central Sales Tax in respect of branch transfers is not mandatory. The said communication of the Central Government is referred to in Central Sales Tax Laws by K. Chaturved P. Kothary, 5th Edn. 1981 Vol. I, page 497. The said communication issued by the Central Government shows how Sec. 6A of the C. S. T. Act was understood by the concerned department of the Government. In construing the scope of Sec. 6A of the C. S. T. Act, it will be relevant to take into account the contents of the said circular. It is contemporaneous exposition by the administrative authorities who are concerned with the administration of relevant law. The said communication of the Central Government is a very useful and relevant guide to under and the scope of the expressions contained in Sec. 6A of the. C.S T. Act. We are of the view that the communication aforesaid of the Central Government affords good evidence and bass's for the conclusion reached by us to the effect that the production of the declaration (F Form) is not mandatory. We are fortified in the above statement of law by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons ( : 37 S T.C 583 at p. 586); State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders (1989 (1) S C. 196 at p. 198 para 8), and State of Tamil Nadu v. Polyweb P. Ltd. ( : 51 S.T.C 364 Mad).