SHREE HANUMAN RICE MILL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEMBER , Additional Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following questions under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") :

(2.) FACTS may be stated. The dealer carries on business of purchasing paddy inside the State and after converting the same into rice in its rice mill at Chandabali, it sells the same in course of inter-State trade and commerce. In the assessment year, 1978-79 it disclosed turnover of Rs. 2,57,204 in respect of sale of rice to unregistered dealers in course of inter-State trade and commerce. Further, it disclosed turnover of Rs. 1,41,435 showing branch transfer to places outside the State, but did not produce declarations in form F in support of such transfers. The Sales Tax Officer imposed tax at the rate of 8 per cent in respect of both the turnovers and on appeal, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld the assessment. The dealer preferred second appeal before the Sales tax Tribunal which came to be disposed of the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal on 19th December, 1980. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, held that in view of the provisions of section 15 (c) of the Central Sales Tax Act ("cst Act" for short), imposition of tax at the rate of 8 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 2,57,204 was correct, but with regard to the turnover of branch transfers he took a different view and relying upon Notification No. F. 28/2/74-ST dated 22nd January, 1974 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, held that production of declarations in form F was not mandatory and the transactions could be proved by the dealer by adducing evidence otherwise. Accordingly, he directed that opportunity should be given to the dealer to adduce other evidence in support of the turnover of the branch transfers to the tune of Rs. 1,41,435.

(3.) SO far as the second is concerned, the matter is no longer res integra in view of the decisions reported in [1987] 67 STC 262 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation) and [1988] 68 STC 153 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Ramnarayan Sitaram ). It was held that under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, form F was not conclusive proof that the inter-State transfers were otherwise than by way of sale. The assessing officer has the jurisdiction to make further enquiry as to whether the transactions covered by form F were sales, or mere transfers as claimed by the dealer. The dealer might thus prove his claim in any other manner also. Moreover, the word "shall" used in sub-rules (5) and (7) of rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, being in a procedural statute, could not be held to be mandatory, when non-compliance was not to have adverse effect. Learned counsel appearing for both parties did not dispute the above proposition. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative.