Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 248 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxConstitutional validity of Rule 11B(2)(c) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 - Interest sale sale - Reading of this provision would show that a purchasing dealer claiming the benefit of Section 6 (2) shall, in respect of such claim, furnish to the assessing authority a photocopy of the consignee copy of the lorry receipt, railway receipt, bill of lading bearing endorsement made by such dealer or cash receipt in favour of the purchaser taking delivery of the goods. Held that:- by Section 13(3), power is conferred on the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and the only limitation therein is that such rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the CST Act or the rules made by the Central Government under Section 13(1) thereof. The scope of such power is enlarged by section 13(4) which provide that in particular and without prejudice to the powers conferred as per 13(3), the State Government may make rules for all or any of the purposes enumerated therein. The purposes enumerated in clause (c) thereof include rules for furnishing of any other information relating to the business of a dealer as may be necessary for the purposes of the Act. According to us, such expansive power conferred on the rule making authority takes within its sweep, power to prescribe production of the documents that are mentioned in Rule 11B(2)(c) also for the purpose of availing of the exemption provided under section 6 of the CST Act. Even apart from that, the net result of Rule 11B(2) is that the dealer should produce documents, the details of some of which are already required to be specified in form E-I and E-II vide clause (4) thereof. In our view, these provisions of rule 11B(2)(c) do not, in any manner, run either inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6(2) nor can that rule be said to be framed in excess of the rule making power conferred under Sections 13(3) and 13(4) of the CST Act. Viewed in this manner, we are unable to sustain the judgment under appeal. Decided in favor of revenue.
|