9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (7) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a concessional rate under the Central Act. The concessional rate as prevailing during the period in question was at I per cent. The Sales Tax Officer, Mayurbhanj, in his assessment order dated 29th June, 1961, held that the declarations in Form 'C' were defective and that the petitioner was liable to payment of Central sales tax at the full rate of 5 per cent. and not at the concessional rate of I per cent. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax by his order dated 30th November, 1962, held that the declaration forms were valid and the petitioner was entitled to pay at the concessional rate. As the petitioner had already paid the tax at the concessional rate of I per cent., the Assistant Commissioner reduced the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer to nil. In appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Sales Tax Tribunal in its judgment dated 23rd March, 1964, restored the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Tribunal was of opinion that the filing of the declaration forms along with the returns was mandatory and if the declaration forms were not filed along with the returns the assessing authorities had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference cases arising out of the appellate order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. 3.. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction and power under section 24(1) of the Orissa Act to declare rule 12(10) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, in so far as it fixes a period of limitation, ultra vires the Central Act and (ii) Whether, in fact, rule 12(10) is ultra vires the Central Act. 4.. The preliminary objection is that the Tribunal which is a creature of the statute cannot question the vires of the provision under which it functions. The contention is sound and is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras[1966] 17 S.T.C. 418. The majority of their Lordships held thus: "If a statute imposes a liability and creates an effective machinery for deciding questions of law or fact arising in regard to that liability, it may, by necessary implication, bar the maintainability of a civil suit in respect of the said liability. A statute may also confer exclusive jurisdiction on the authorities constituting the said machinery to decide finally a jurisdictional fact thereby excluding by necessary implicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration in Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam v. K.I. Abraham[1967] 20 S.T.C. 367; A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1823. Their Lordships held that this expression only confers power on the rulemaking authority to prescribe a rule stating what particulars are to be mentioned in the prescribed form, the nature and value of the goods sold, the parties to whom they are sold and to which authority the form is to be furnished. The case however does not take in the time element. The rule-making authority is not authorised to prescribe the time-limit within which the declaration is to be filed by the registered dealer. On the basis of the aforesaid construction, their Lordships struck down the third proviso to rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957. The third proviso ran thus: "Provided also that all declaration forms pending submission by dealers on 2nd May, 1960, shall be submitted not later than 16th February, 1961." The declarations were in fact submitted later than 16th February, 1961, and the assessing authorities did not allow the concessional rate. The Supreme Court held that the third proviso fixing the time-limit is ultra vires sections 8(4) and 13 of the Central Act. They also made it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached to the returns Reading both the rules together, there is no escape from the conclusion that the period of limitation has been prescribed under rule 12(10) for filing declarations. 9.. The learned Government Advocate, however, contends that rule 12(10) merely prescribes the manner in which declarations are to be filed. The rule in pith and substance does not prescribe a period of limitation for filing declarations. Read along with rule 7(1) the question of limitation arises only incidentally and on that ground rule 12(10) cannot be declared ultra vires. In support of this contention he places reliance on Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce, KhulnaA.I.R. 1947 P.C. 60. The contention is wholly unsound and the Privy Council decision has no application to such a case. Rule 12(10) makes it imperative that the declarations must be attached to the returns. There being a clear provision in regard to the filing of returns, the same limitation ipso facto applies to the filing of declarations also. This is merely draftsman's art. The period of limitation may be prescribed either in the rule itself or in conjunction with some other rule. The essence of the matter must always be examined. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
