1990 (7) TMI 336 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment under Orissa Sales Tax Act for years 1976-77 and 1977-78.
- Claim of deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act.
- Requirement of declaration in form 34 for deduction.
- Interpretation of the law for the period between April 1, 1976, and May 31, 1976.
- Reasonable opportunity given to the dealer to produce declaration forms.
- Conclusions and decisions of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Orissa High Court dealt with the assessment of a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The dealer, engaged in wholesaling grocery goods, claimed a deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act for sales to registered dealers. The key issue was the requirement of a declaration in form 34 for claiming this deduction. The Tribunal held that the provision for furnishing a declaration is mandatory from June 1, 1976, onwards, and without it, the dealer is not entitled to the deduction.

Regarding the period between April 1, 1976, and May 31, 1976, the Court differentiated the requirement for a declaration. During this period, evidence other than the prescribed declaration form could be considered, and if the dealer could prove sales to another registered dealer in Orissa, a deduction would be allowed. The Court emphasized that for this specific period, the declaration in form 34 was not mandatory.

The judgment also addressed the issue of whether the dealer was given a reasonable opportunity to produce the declaration forms. The Court noted that the determination of reasonable opportunity depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, held that a reasonable opportunity was indeed given to the dealer, leading to the dismissal of related applications.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's orders confirming assessments for the year 1977-78 and the period from June 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977. However, for the period between April 1, 1976, and May 31, 1976, the Tribunal was directed to examine the acceptability of sales to a specific trader based on the affidavit provided. The judgment favored the dealer for the specific period mentioned but ruled against the dealer for the rest of the period. The Court made no order as to costs in this matter.

The judgment was a joint decision by Judges S.C. Mohapatra and J.M. Mahapatra, with both concurring on the conclusions and decisions reached.