1982 (5) TMI 192 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "Jaughat" as cattle fodder in a commercial sense.
2. Requirement of filing Form III-C (2) for claiming exemption on sale of foodgrains to registered dealers under Section 3-D(2).

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of interpreting the term "Jaughat" in a commercial sense as cattle fodder. The revising authority directed the assessing authority to determine the popular meaning and common use of Jaughat, which the assessee claimed was cattle fodder. The court held that the mere fact that Jaughat was consumed by horses or cows did not conclusively define it as cattle fodder. The revising authority's directive to assess the common use of Jaughat was deemed appropriate, focusing on how it was understood commercially or popularly.

2. The judgment delves into the controversy surrounding the requirement of filing Form III-C (2) for claiming exemption on the sale of foodgrains to registered dealers under Section 3-D(2). The revising authority observed that the assessee could only be entitled to exemption if it filed Form III-C (2) for sales to registered dealers. The assessee had sold foodgrains to both registered and unregistered dealers but failed to submit Form III-C (2). The revising authority directed the assessing authority to verify the sales list, leading to the disagreement between the parties. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 3-D(7)(b) and emphasized that the law entitles the assessee to prove, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, that the sale was made to a registered dealer. The filing of forms was deemed a method of proof for the benefit of the assessee, with the intention that proof was not limited to furnishing forms but also proving the same to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.

3. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed, with the observation that the assessing authority should consider other evidence besides Form III-C (2) to determine whether the sale to registered dealers met the requirements of Section 3-D(7)(b). The judgment highlighted the importance of proving the sale to a registered dealer to claim exemption, emphasizing that the intention behind the provision was not solely reliant on filing forms but proving the fact to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.