Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1970 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1970 (3) TMI 119 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Acceptance of duplicate declaration form 'C' for concessional tax rate under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a question referred to the Orissa High Court regarding the nonacceptance of a duplicate declaration form 'C' by the first appellate authority, leading to the denial of the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer had initially faced issues with the original declaration form and presented a duplicate form during the appellate stage. The Sales Tax Officer and the Tribunal did not accept the duplicate form, prompting the reference to the High Court under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The amended Rule 6(d) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, allowed for the submission of a duplicate declaration form 'C' in cases where the original was lost in transit. The court considered whether the first appellate authority should have accepted the duplicate declaration form to support the dealer's claim for a concessional tax rate under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Referring to a previous judgment by the court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Others, the court emphasized that declarations could be filed at the appellate stage with a sufficient explanation for the delay. The court clarified that the appellate authority could entertain such declarations if satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. The assessing authority and the Tribunal had erroneously rejected the duplicate declaration form based on the misconception that it needed to be attached to the return. The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the duplicate declaration form 'C' filed during the first appellate stage without further examination of the reasons for the delay. The court accepted the reference, highlighting that the Tribunal needed to assess whether the dealer had valid reasons for submitting the duplicate form at a later stage. The judgment was delivered by Misra G.K., C.J., and Acharya S., J., with Acharya J. concurring with the decision. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of accepting the duplicate declaration form 'C' at the appellate stage and directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the case based on the principles outlined in the court's previous decision. The court accepted the reference without costs and ordered the refund of the reference fee.
|