COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. BOMBAY TEXTILE STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, has sent a statement of the case and referred the following question to this court for its decision : Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that regarding the date of registration, which was not mentioned in the C forms originally produced, evidence should have been accepted in the reassessment proceedings ?

(2.) THE relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows : The assessment of the non-applicant for the assessment year Diwali 1960-61 was reopened under Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as some of the C forms, which had been filed by the assessee in his original assessment case, did not contain the date of registration. The C forms, which did not contain the date of registration, were Nos. 197014, 366140, 393767, 377143, 198700, 80897, 198601 and 397755. In pursuance of a notice, which was issued to the assessee, an application along with the letters of the concerned parties mentioning the date of registration was filed. On the strength of these letters it was prayed that the date of registration as mentioned in those letters be incorporated in the relevant C forms which had earlier been filed. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the prayer and, accordingly, rejected the C forms also and held that the assessee was not entitled to the reduced rate of taxation. He, therefore, reassessed the non-applicant.

(3.) FROM amongst the eight C forms that were rejected, the argument in appeal with regard to the C forms bearing Nos. 366140, 377143 and 80897 issued by Kailash Brothers, Kanpur, was that since a C form bearing No. 294351 issued by the same purchasing dealer was on record, which mentions the date of registration, on the basis of the date mentioned in this C form, that should be taken to be the date in the other three C forms issued by the same purchasing dealer in which the date of registration was not mentioned. With regard to the two C forms bearing Nos. 393767 and 397755 issued by Kisan Bhandar, Bhao Nagar, the contention was that a C form bearing No. 393770 issued by the same purchasing dealer, which bears a date of registration, should be made use of for finding the date of registration, which was not mentioned in the two rejected C forms.