MURLI DHAR DHARAMPAL DARESI Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer is for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated 30th of December, 1963, whereby the benefit under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as C.S.T. Act) in respect of the inter-State sales was denied because of the petitioner's failure to file the declaration in Form "C" by the 31st March, 1963, in accordance with the circular issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, dated 31st January, 1963.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this petition lie in a very narrow compass. They are : that the petitioner was a dealer in khal, oil, kirana and foodgrains, and carried on business on his own account as well as on behalf of U.P. and ex-U.P. principals. In the relevant assessment year 1959-60, the total sales were of Rs. 21,94,416-78 np., out of which the sales outside U.P. were of Rs. 1,67,212-98 np. The petitioner filed all the quarterly returns showing his gross sales and net sales made to ex-U.P. dealers as required by the C.S.T. Act, read with rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules but did not file the declaration in Form "C" along with the returns as required by rule 8(2) of the C.S.T. (U.P.) Rules. The reason given for the failure to attach Form "C" with the quarterly returns was that those forms had not been received from the ex-U.P. dealers by that time. 235 "C" Forms, however, were admittedly filed by the petitioner on 21st December, 1963, covering the inter-State ex-U.P. sales of Rs. 1,61,601-81 np. The assessment was made on the 30th December, 1962. In regard to the remaining sales of Rs. 5,611-17 np. no Form "C" was submitted as those sales were made to unregistered dealers. The Sales Tax Officer, however, by his assessment order dated 30th December, 1963, considered that as the "C" Forms were not filed within the time prescribed, which according to him meant the circular of the Commissioner whereby the time for acceptance of "C" Forms was extended up to the 31st March, 1963. As the "C" Forms were filed on the 21st December, 1963, which was after the date prescribed in the said circular the petitioner was denied the benefit of the provisions of section 8(1) of the C.S.T. Act and was taxed on inter-State sales to registered dealers at 7 per cent. instead of 1 per cent. which otherwise would have been levied. The writ petition challenges the assessment order.

(3.) THE Kerala Full Bench was concerned with the vires of the third proviso to rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules as it then stood, which provided on 2nd May, 1960, for the extension of time for filing "C" Forms for submission upto the 16th of February, 1961. The "C" Forms in that case were submitted on the 8th March, 1961, and were, therefore, not entertained by the Sales Tax Officer. That dealer thus was deprived of the concession conferred by section 8(1) of the C.S.T. Act by the Sales Tax Officer. The appeal and revision having proved infructuous the dealer without going in reference appears to have moved the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the quashing of the assessment, appellate and revisional orders on the ground that rule 6 of the C.S.T. (Kerala) Rules and the provision thereto, in so far as it laid down a time limit went beyond section 8(4) of the C.S.T. Act which only permitted the State to make rules as to the "prescribed manner" of making of such a declaration and there is no mandate in section 8(4) which would permit the State to lay down a time limit as had been attempted to be done in rule 6. Reference was made to a decision of the House of Lords and the observations of Lord Campbell, C.J., in Acraman v. Herniman (16 Q.B. 1003), where the words "in manner and form" were held to refer only to the mode in which the thing is to be done, and not to the thing which is to be done or the time for doing it. It was also pointed out in the Full Bench case that section 13(4)(g) of the C.S.T. Act indicated that the Legislature was conscious of the two different concepts as that of "the time within which" and "the manner in which", as both these expressions were used in sub-clause (g) to sub-section (4) of section 13 of the C.S.T. Act. The Full Bench further distinguished the Madras case where Acraman's case (16 Q.B. 1003) was referred to by saying that the words "in the manner prescribed" was assumed as including the "time within which" the "C" Form was to be filed. The Full Bench, therefore, held that "in the manner prescribed" in section 8(4) of C.S.T. Act does not take in the time element and as such rule 6 of the C.S.T. (Kerala) Rules went beyond section 8(4) of the C.S.T. Act and as "C" Forms were filed before the assessment was completed they had to be accepted. The assessment, appellate and revisional orders which had deprived the assessee of the benefit of section 8(1) of the C.S.T. Act were therefore directed to be quashed. Apart from the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court the learned counsel for the petitioner added that in the General Clauses Act, Central as well as that of U.P., by section 22, made a clear distinction between "time when" or the "place where" or the "manner in which", anything is to be done under the Act. The Legislature would not have used these several expressions in the General Clauses Act unless they meant different things and this clearly indicated that each one of them intended to cover a different situation.