CHHITARMAL RAM DAYAL Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has referred the following questions :

(2.) THE assessee is a dealer carrying on business in foodgrains. It applied for exemption from tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1957-58. The application was purportedly made under rule 20-B(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules on 30th April, 1957, and a sum of Rs. 18 was deposited with it. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the application on the ground that rule 20-B(a) required a deposit, within 30 days of the commencement of the year, of one-fourth of the exemption fee calculated on the basis of the turnover of the previous year and the deposit of Rs. 18 fell short of that amount. The dealer contended that rule 20-B(a) had come into force from 6th April, 1957, only and did not apply to claims for exemption for the year 1957-58, but the contention was rejected. An appeal by the assessee was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax. The assessee applied in revision. Before the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax it appears that assessee admitted that rule 20-B applied, that, therefore, one-fourth of the exemption fee should have been deposited along with the exemption application and that the amount of Rs. 18 actually deposited was short of that amount. But the assessee pointed out that he had deposited Rs. 3,600 on 5th May, 1958, and Rs. 4,382 on 9th August, 1958, and was entitled to the benefit of the direction contained in a circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 22nd November, 1958, directing the Sales Tax Officers to grant extension of time for depositing the exemption fee. The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax held that the Commissioner of Sales Tax had no power to grant extension of time and so enlarge the period specified in rule 20-B(a) and accordingly he declined to be bound by the circular. The revision application was rejected. And now, at the instance of the assessee, this reference has been made. 4. In regard to the first question it appears from the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions) disposing of the revision application that it was admitted by the assessee that rule 20-B would apply and that, therefore, the deposit of Rs. 18 made when the application was filed was insufficient. No dispute appears to have been raised by the assessee on this point. In the circumstances, it is not possible to say that the first question arises out of the order disposing of the revision application. Consequently, I return no answer to it. 5. The second question is whether the circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax has statutory effect and was binding upon the Sales Tax Officer obliging him to extend time to enable a dealer to comply with rule 20-B(a). It is contended that rule 20-B(a) itself contemplates that in regard to the period within which its requirements may be fulfilled a different provision can be made and that, it is said, is evident from the words "unless otherwise provided". It is urged that a contrary provision can be made by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under rule 82 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. Rule 82 provides :