NEW PRAHLAD MILLS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has been referred to us in this reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the assessee is "Whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case and on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to claim exemption under section 9(1) in respect of the impugned sale ?" Section 9(1) mentioned in the said question is really the first proviso to section 9 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The relevant provisions of section 9 are as follows :

(2.) Before we set out the facts which have given rise to this reference it may be convenient to refer to the other statutory provisions relevant to this matter. The prescribed form mentioned in the first proviso to section 9 is form K to the Bombay Sales Tax (Registration, Licensing and Authorisation) Rules, 1954. Rule 13 of the said Rules provides for a certificate in different forms to be given to a dealer to enable him to obtain deduction or claim exemption in his turnover and under sub-rule (2) of the said rule a certificate for the purpose of first proviso to section 9 is to be in the said form K. The said form requires a dealer giving a certificate to state therein that he is a registered dealer, to specify his registration number, and to state further that a licence under section 12 of the said Act has been given to him and that the goods purchased by him are intended for resale by him. The certificate in form K is to be singed by the dealer giving the certificate and is to mention the status or the capacity in which he is signing it. Form F to the said Rules is the form in which a licence is issued to a dealer. The relevant clauses of the said form are clauses 6, 7 and 8. They are as follows :

(3.) Turning now to the facts of this case, the assessee was a registered dealer under the said Act. In his assessment for the year 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of sales aggregating to Rs. 7,80,007 alleged to be made by the assessee to one Messrs. Arun Trading Company on the ground that these were sales which were covered by the first proviso to section 9. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction and the attempt by the assessee to have the order set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal by way of appeals and revision failed.