2009 (10) TMI 852 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case there is any legal evidence to fix the higher rates of dal and dal gram at Rs. 220 and Rs. 275 per quintal than the rates claimed by the assessee which were based on the certificate issued by the Market Committee Tohana? Held that - The court is under obligation to presume a certified copy to be genuine. The use of expression shall presume clearly shows that such a document has to be considered as proved until and unless it is disproved. Section 4 of the Evidence Act defines the expression shall presume to mean that wherever the expression is used in the Evidence Act then the court must presume the fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. Accordingly it has to be held that certificate issued by the Market Committee Tohana authenticating rates of gram and gram dal at Rs. 155 to Rs. 160 has to be considered as genuine. By mere conjectural observation it cannot be concluded that there was any legal evidence on record in support of the conclusion of the Assessing Authority or subsequent authorities that prices at Rs. 220 to Rs. 275 in respect of gram and gram dal were justified. Accordingly reference is disposed of and question of law referred is answered in favour of the assessee-petitioner.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of legal evidence in fixing rates of dal and dal gram for assessment purposes under the Haryana GST Act.
2. Validity of the certificate issued by the Market Committee, Tohana, as legal evidence.
3. Consideration of public documents under the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Presumptions regarding genuineness of certified copies of public documents.

Issue 1: Interpretation of legal evidence in fixing rates of dal and dal gram:
The case involved a reference to the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Haryana Sales Tax Tribunal regarding the fixation of rates of dal and dal gram for assessment purposes under the Haryana GST Act. The main question was whether there was legal evidence to support the higher rates of Rs. 220 and Rs. 275 per quintal, as opposed to the rates claimed by the assessee based on a certificate from the Market Committee, Tohana. The Tribunal had upheld the higher rates, leading to further legal proceedings.

Issue 2: Validity of the certificate issued by the Market Committee:
The petitioner argued that the certificate issued by the Market Committee, Tohana, providing rates of Rs. 155 to Rs. 160 per quintal for gram and gram dal, should be considered as legal evidence. The counsel contended that this certificate was a public document under the Indian Evidence Act, forming a record of the acts of an official body, and should be regarded as genuine. The State counsel, on the other hand, questioned the authenticity of the rates mentioned in the certificate, highlighting additional incidental charges that were not factored into the claimed rates.

Issue 3: Consideration of public documents under the Indian Evidence Act:
The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act related to public documents, emphasizing that documents forming records of official bodies, like the Market Committee, are considered public documents. The court referred to sections 74, 76, and 79 of the Evidence Act, which outline the process of certifying public documents, raising presumptions regarding their genuineness. The court concluded that the certificate issued by the Market Committee should be treated as genuine evidence.

Issue 4: Presumptions regarding genuineness of certified copies:
The court discussed the legal obligation to presume certified copies of public documents as genuine unless proven otherwise. Referring to section 4 of the Evidence Act, which defines the term "shall presume," the court highlighted that such documents must be accepted as true until disproved. In this case, the court found that the rates disclosed by the Market Committee should be considered authentic, dismissing the argument based on conjectural observations from the Sales Tax Department's records.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee-petitioner, emphasizing the authenticity of the rates provided by the Market Committee and directing assessment based on those rates. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal evidence, public documents, and presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act in resolving the dispute over the assessment of dal and dal gram rates under the Haryana GST Act.

← Previous Next →