LAWS(ORI)-1990-7-6

SHYAM GUDAKHU FACTORY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On July 18, 1990
SHYAM GUDAKHU FACTORY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSESSMENT is for the year 1978-79 under section 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The Tribunal has stated a case in respect of validity of assessment under section 12 (8) of the Act. Two other questions posed before the Tribunal having been refused, dealer has filed this application under section 24 (2) (b) of the Act to call for a statement from the Tribunal on those two questions.

(2.) BOTH questions relate to refusal of deduction on account of non-production of declaration form as required under rule 27 (2 ). The case of the dealer is that he obtained declaration forms from purchasing dealer and handed over the same to the lawyer to be produced before the taxing authorities. On the way some of the declarations were eaten away by a cow. This assertion is not a dispute. Mr. Ray therefore, submits that keeping object of production of declaration form in mind equity demands that other materials should have been accepted allowing the dealer to prove that there were sales to registered dealers free of tax and those amounts ought to have been deducted.

(3.) MERE obtaining a declaration is not sufficient. In order to get the benefit of deduction the selling dealer is to produce the declaration in the prescribed form which is given by the purchasing dealer. Since law relating to deduction is clear, there is no scope for equity being attracted to such a case which provision is mandatory in nature. Mr. A. K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon some decisions of the Supreme Court where principle of equity was made applicable in considering taxing statutes. Since the decisions are in a different context and are not in respect of deductions similar to as envisaged under section 5 (2) (A) (a) (ii), there is no scope of attracting equity to such a case. If the prescribed declaration form would have been in triplicate, any one of the parts of such form would have satisfied the requirements of rule 27 (2 ). In the present case, there is no such form. Accordingly, there is no scope for a dealer to prove the sale to a purchasing dealer by obtaining other evidence in support of declaration for getting the deduction.