JAMNALAL RAMGOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the dealer M/s. Jamnalal Ramgopal of Chhahra (District Kota) under Sec. 14 2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with Sec. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act against an order dated 21-12-68 by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Ajmer in respect of Central Saxes Tax assessment for the period 16-11-63 to 3-11-64. The dealer sold lanced poppy heads in inter-State trade. Out of the turnover, 'c' forms (declarations from the purchasing dealers) were not submitted by the dealer for Rs. 15,293 until the time of assessment. The assessing authority, therefore, did not allow the benefit of the concessional rate under Section 8 (1) of the GST Act and charged tax at 10% on this part of the turnover. The dealer submitted 'c' forms for Rs. 8432 out of this before the Dy. Commissioner in appeal, but the Deputy Commissioner declined to consider them, saying that they had been issued after the assessment had been concluded. Learned counsel for the dealer pointed out that the declaration forms were issued by the dealers assessment on 2-2-67 concerned on 4-2 67, just two days after the completion of the THIS fact had been noted in the appellate order. The Dy. Commissioner had given no reason for not accepting the forms, except that they had been issued after the completion of assessment. He added that it has to be remembered in this case that tax on poppy heads first became chargeable only from 6-3 1964. Learned counsel referred to the Supreme Court judgment in 'sales Tax Officer vs. Abraham' (1967 XX STC 367) which held a provision in the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, prescribing that 'c' forms in respect of a certain period must be submitted by a particular date, to be ultra vires of Section 8 (4) read with Sections 13 (3) and (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act. He also referred to the Patna High Court judgment in 'bastar Colla Colliery Co. vs. State of Bihar' (1959 XXIII STC 142) by which a provision in the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules was held to be ultra vires for similar reason, and it was also held that opportunity could be given to furnish the forms even after assessment if the appellate or revi-sional authority could be satisfied that sufficient cause had been made out for giving the opportunity. He further referred to the Mysore High Court judgment in 'm. S. Shirahatti vs. Commercial Taxes Officer' (1967 XIX STC 306] in which their Lordships upheld the acceptance of 'c' forms at the appellate stage. Learned counsel argued on the basis of these rulings that the High Courts and even the Supreme Court did not view with favour limitations in regard to time within which 'c' forms should submitted. The departmental representative in his reply referred to the Madras High Court judgment in 'dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vs. Manohar Brosr' (1962 XIII STC 686) which reiterated that High Court's earlier view in Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vsparekutti Haje son's (1962 XIII STC 680 ) to the effect that there is no scope for the assessee to claim the benefit of Sec. 8 (1) of the CST Act by producing the 'c' forms before appellate authority after an assessment order against him, and that the Act does not confer any power on the appellate authority to receive 'c' forms produced before him for the first time by the assessee by condoning the failure on the part of the assessee to produce them before the assessing authority He said that this should be regarded as the correct exposition of law and the Dy. Commissioner's order in declining to accept the 'c' forms submitted to him should be upheld. Now, so far as the Supreme Court ruling in 1967 XX STC 367 is concerned, it does not help either side. What was held was that prescribing a specific time limit for the submission of 'c forms was ultra vires of the State's powers to frame rule? under Sec. 8 (4) read with Sections 13 (3 and (4) of the CST Act, The ruling, however, clearly said that the declaration forms must be submitted "within a reasonable time". In the particular case under consideration the forms had been submitted before the assessment order was passed, and it was held in the circumstances, that the forms had been submitted within reasonable time. We are thus left with the two Madras judgments in 1962 XIII STC 680 & 686, on the one hand, and the Mysore and Patna judgments in 1967 XIX STC 396 and 1969 XXIII STC 142 on the other. The Madras rulings took the strict view stated in para 6 above. The Mysore High Court fully considered the matter in 1967 XIX STC 306 and dissented from the Madras view after considering 1962 XIII STC 680. Their Lordships made the following observations (at page 3ll) ". . . . . . the appellate authority has not only the power but the duty to correct the mistake, if any, committed by the original authority. If the that much is granted, it will be an unnecessary abridgement of the powers of the appellate authority and deprivation of its authority to correct mistakes to take the strict view which the Madras High Court has taken. But the power to refuse to receive 'c' forms at a late stage if laches are proved is, undoubtedly, there and that power is sufficient for the protection of the revenue; When there are no laches proved against the assessee and when delays in commercial transactions may be regarded as inevitable, we do not think that it will be proper to say that under no circumstances shall the appellate authority receive the 'c' forms. " In 1962 XXIII STC 142 the Patna High Court also made the observation that while, generally and ordinarily, the 'c' forms should be furnished before the assessment is made, if sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the appellate or even the revising authority that the forms could not be submitted before the passing of the assessment order for sufficient cause, and that opportunity for submission of the forms should be given even after the passing of the assessment order, such opportunity can be given. The concensus of rulings now appears to be that while 'c' forms should be submitted within a reasonable time and generally and ordinarily before assessment is made by the assessing authority, it is not the correct position in law that the forms can in no circumstances be accepted after the completion of the assessment. If the appellate or revisional authority is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for opportunity for submission of 'c' forms being allowed even after the completion of assessment, such opportunity may be given. As the Dy. Commissioner rejected the forms on the sole ground that the assessment had already been completed, the order can not be upheld, in view of the position explained above. The revision application is, therefore, accepted and the Dy. Commissioner's order is set aside. The case is remanded to the Dy. Commissioner. He may give a fresh opportunity to the dealer to be heard in the matter and if the Dy. Commissioner is, after the hearing and after seeing the forms, satisfied (i) that there was sufficient cause why the dealer could not secure the forms earlier and submit them before the assessment, and (ii) that the forms are genuine and are otherwise acceptable, he may accept the forms and pass orders accordingly. I may add that besides the position in law, accepted in para 10, I also have in this particular case the facts that (i) the forms are reported to have been issued two days after the assessment order (as stated in the Dy. Commissioner's order), and (ii) tax on poppy heads became payable for the first time only from 6-3-64 during the period of this assessment itself. .