TIRUKOILUR OIL MILLS Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO a considerable extent, our task in these petitions is lightened, because of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which covers two of the substantial points argued in them.

(2.) IN T. C. 8 of 1964, which relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee, who is the petitioner, disputed the tax on five items of turnover, before the Tribunal. The assessing authority determined the net turnover to be Rs. 1,57,105. 71 of which Rs. 1,47,979. 71 was held liable to tax at one per cent and the balance of Rs. 9,126 at seven per cent. The assessing authority determined the net turnover to be Rs. 1,57,105. 71 of which Rs. 1,47,979. 71 was held liable to tax at one per cent and the balance of Rs. 9,126 at seven per cent. The turnover charged to the higher rate related to two sales both dated 29-12-1959, one for Rs. 4,690 and the other for Rs. 4,536 made by the assessee to a purchaser in the state of Kerala. In respect of the aggregate turnover of the two sales, a single declaration in Form C was filed before the assessing authority along with the connected monthly return. But when the assessing authority indicated to the assessee that the declaration was not in compliance with the proviso to Rs. 10 (1)of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, he obtained fresh but separate declarations in C Form for each of the two sales and tendered them to the officer, before he completed assessment. He declined to accept the fresh declaration apparently on the ground that they were not filed along with the monthly returns as required by Rs. 5 (1) of the said Rules and that no discretion in him vested to condone the delay in the late filing. The sum of Rs. 1,47,979. 71 included three items of turnover totalling Rs. 48,681. 08 in respect of which declarations in C form were filed and accepted by the assessing authority. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes found the position of the assessee to be worse, and enhanced the turnover chargeable to the higher rate. Apart from the sum of Rs. 9,126 which he held to be chargeable at 7 per cent, he added to the chargeable turnover at that rate Rs. 8,296. 18, as referable to excise duty not eligible for reduction and another sum of Rs. 48,601. 08, which, as already mentioned, pertained to three items of turnover. In his view, the assessing authority was right in charging the sum of Rs. 9,126 at the higher rate. This Court in Khader and Co. v. State of Madras (1966) 17 STC 396 (Mad), held that there was no provision in the Central Sales Tax Act or the rules made thereunder for deduction of excise duty from chargeable turnover. It appears, in fact, that so far as the amount of the excise duty was concerned, the assessee admitted liability before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Though a ground has been taken on this matter before the Tribunal and also in this Court, it has not actually been pressed, counsel for the assessee realising that, in view of the admission of the assessee and also (1966) 17 STC 396 (Mad), it will not avail him to urge it any longer. The assessee failed to get relief before the Tribunal in respect of the other two sums of turnover, Rs. 9,126 and Rs. 48,682. 08. In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal purported to follow Dy. Commissioner of commercial Taxes v. Parakutti Hajee Sons, and Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Manohar Bros. , both to the effect that non-compliance with the requirements of S. 8 (4) read wits Rs. 5 (1)would disentitle a dealer to the benefit of S. 8 (1 ).

(3.) THE C Forms which covered the three items of turnover totalling Rs. 48,681. 08 were, according to the Appellant Assistant Commissioner, with whom the Tribunal agreed, defective in that in all of them the registration number and the date of registration of the out-of State purchases dealer were not given, and in one case the value of the goods sold as noted in the C form differed from the relative invoice. The assessee, in all the three cases, filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner original letters obtained from the out-of State buyers showing the dates of registration, and also explained to him that the discrepancy in the figures in one of these case occurred between that mentioned in the C form and the invoice. But, as we have mentioned, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not minded to receive the additional evidence making up the deficiency found by him, as in his opinion, he had no power or jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing accurate C forms within the time prescribed.