COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. B A KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference on a statement of the case submitted by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (referred to hereinafter as "the said Act".)

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The respondent is a dealer registered under the said Act. The assessment periods with which we are concerned are the periods from 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, and 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, respectively. A common statement of the case has been submitted in respect of two reference applications, namely, reference applications Nos. 51 and 52 of 1965 respectively relating to the aforesaid two assessment periods, and really speaking, there should have been two references filed by the Commissioner. However, as the reference arises from a common statement of the case, we are disposing it of as it is at the request of both the parties in respect of the aforesaid periods. It appears that it was found by the Sales Tax Officer that purchases worth Rs. 947.93 Ps. made by the dealer from one M/s. Aggarwal & Company, Bombay on 18th February, 1959, were not accounted for by the dealer in his books of account. Similarly, purchases of 152 rounds and 70 pattas (iron and steel goods) from Jethalal Mohanji of Bombay in 1959 were not accounted for by the dealer in his books of account. The Sales Tax Officer also detected from the octroi books of the toll naka of Sangli that goods worth Rs. 9,580 in the year 1958-59 and Rs. 10,370 in the year 1959-60 were found to have been sent to Bombay in the name of the dealer and these transactions had not been accounted for in the dealer's account. On the basis of this material, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the books of account of the dealer and enhanced the gross turnover of the dealer by 33 1/3 per cent. From the various orders on record, it appears that the gross turnover of the dealer was increased by the Sales Tax Officer by 33 1/3 per cent. In respect of the period 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, the gross turnover of sales, as seen from the books of account, was increased from Rs. 1,90,898 to Rs. 2,54,530 and the gross turnover of purchases (as per accounts) was increased from Rs. 1,46,286 to Rs. 2,22,987. In respect of the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, the gross turnover of sales was increased from Rs. 1,82,119 (as per books of account) to Rs. 2,42,898 and the gross turnover of purchases was increased from Rs. 1,62,236 (as per the books of account) to Rs. 2,13,769. The dealer preferred appeals against these orders to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner reduced the enhanced turnover from 33 1/3 per cent to 25 per cent. Apart from this, in respect of the period 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, he treated only purchases of Rs. 33,818 as from unregistered dealers and the rest of the enhanced purchases as from registered dealers and entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided in section 8(a) of the said Act. Similarly, in the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, he treated only purchases of Rs. 20,498 as from unregistered dealers as against the enhanced purchases as Rs. 36,158. The dealer then preferred revisional applications against these orders to the Deputy Commissioner. In respect of the findings as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner did not interfere except that he reduced the estimate of enhanced purchases from unregistered dealers in respect of the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st December, 1959, from Rs. 20,498 as made by the Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 18,307. The dealer then preferred further revisional applications to the Sales Tax Tribunal. Several contentions were advanced before the Tribunal with which we are not concerned. The Tribunal did not accept the arguments of the dealer to the effect that no new enhancement in the turnover should have been made at all. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the contentions of Mr. Patel, who appeared for the dealer, that the enhanced turnover of Rs. 47,725 in respect of the period 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, and Rs. 45,545 in respect of the period 1st April, 1959 to 31st December, 1959 should be bifurcated into the free and taxable turnover on the basis of the proportion of tax free sales, "O.B.S. Sales" which means inter-State sales, and sales taxable at different rates as disclosed by the books of account and were acceptable to the assessing authorities. The Tribunal has gone on the observe as follows : "Since the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax has granted him exemption of 50 per cent under section 8(a) in respect of the enhanced turnover, we do not wish to disturb the same. The rest of the exemption in respect of the sales out of enhanced turnover should be worked out on the basis of the proportion of these exemptions as revealed by the books of account and accepted by the department. The quantum of purchases to be enhanced should be also worked out and classified on the same in the proportion of the purchases under different heads such as R.D. (Registered dealers), U.R.D. (unregistered dealers) and O.B.S. (outside Bombay sales or inter-State sales) and entries 1 to 18 of Schedule B as revealed by the books of account and accepted by the officer". (bracketed portions supplied by us.)

(3.) We may make out clear that the facts which we have set out aforesaid had to be gathered by us from the various orders, namely, the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner as unfortunately, the statement of the case does not set out most of the relevant facts. It should be made once again clear to the Tribunal that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and the statement of the case prepared and furnished by the Tribunal should set out the relevant facts clearly and precisely. The reason for providing for a statement of the case is that the Court should not have to roam over the whole record to find out the relevant facts. It is unfortunate that the statement of case in this case is wholly unsatisfactory. Fortunately, there is no controversy over these facts. But the above observations should be borne in mind by the Tribunal when a statement of the case is to be formulated. It is desirable that when a reference is made, a draft statement of the case should be prepared and both the sides should be given opportunity of being heard and then the final statement of case should be prepared incorporating all the relevant facts as found by the Tribunal. We do hope, the Tribunal will keep this in mind in future.