TMI Blog1969 (11) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that a sum of Rs. 4,68,399.54 represented the sales turnover of cotton tyre cord warp sheet. This is however subject to verification. The petitioner's further case is that in so far as the turnover of Rs. 5,29,652.57 out of Rs. 5,32,910.05 is concerned it did produce the 'C' Forms, not along with the return, but at some later point of time, either before or immediately after the final assessment order. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee to be taxed at the lower rate of I per cent. because the 'C' Forms were not filed in time and due diligence was not exercised in the matter of their filing. On appeal it was expressly contended that cotton tyre cord warp sheet is not a woven fabric but is really cotton yarn. It was further argued that for the turnover of Rs. 11,159.75 included in the disputed turnover the assessee's case is that the 'C' Forms were filed along with the returns. Ultimately they were not traced in the office of the department. It could not therefore get relief before the assessing officer. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, duplicate 'C' Forms were obtained and filed before the appellate authority on 24th January, 1964. (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd" should be classified as cotton yarn. As a matter of fact, this was the burden of the song of the assessee. On the other question, the Tribunal was of the view, relying on Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division v. Manohar Brothers(1), that the 'C' Forms were not filed strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions under the C.S.T. Act. The Tribunal found that the petitioner did not furnish the 'C' Forms before the prescribed authority before the 25th of the succeeding month nor did it maintain a register in Form No. 9 and submit the forms with its last return. Such non-compliance according to the Tribunal, was enough to reject the contention that the petitioner was entitled to the concessional rate of levy. Against the said order of dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the present tax case has been filed. Mr. Rangarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that "cord" is classifiable as textile or cloth and hence exempt from taxation. He would urge that the view in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division v. Manohar Brothers[1962] 13 S.T.C. 686. is no longer good law in view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.75, the case of the petitioner is that it filed the 'C' Forms well within time. They were not traceable. It obtained duplicate forms and filed them before the appellate authority, who refused to consider them. It cannot be said that there was any oblique purpose in the mind of the assessee when it pleaded in the way it did. Considering the bona fides in the conduct of the assessee, we do not think that the production of the 'C' Forms was unduly delayed. Regarding the turnovers of Rs. 2,52,311.80 and Rs. 1,53,154.90, we are of the view that the relative 'C' Forms should be noticed and considered. The 'C' Forms relatable to the former turnover were filed before the assessment order was passed and in the case of the latter they were filed before the order was communicated to the assessee. In either case, they are not to be rejected as deserving no consideration whatsoever. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner at least should have taken them on file and adjudicated upon them. In our view, they were filed within a reasonable time, and in fact, within the time asked for and as a matter of fact they entered the portals of the assessing officer before the assessment order was made or mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that it is not well-founded, yet it could grant relief if it is satisfied that the assessee's stand is otherwise justified on other grounds not raised before if, it is indeed duty bound to grant such a relief: see Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.[1967] 3 S.C.R. 957; 66 I.T.R. 710. The "cord", a sample of which has been seen by us, is undoubtedly not a fabric or textile or cord as is normally understood. The Tribunal also is of that view. "Cord" means twisted thread thicker than string and thinner than rope. Ordinarily "cord" is understood as rope of small diameter or a thick string. String, cord and rope are, no doubt, different species of the same genus, namely, yarn. But yarn as such means spun thread. It may form one of the threads of a string, cord or rope. But cotton yarn is distinct by itself and does not evade analysis. The Tribunal, after meticulously explaining the words cord, string and rope, comes to the conclusion that the material before it was not cotton yarn. No reason is given why the "cord" is not cotton yarn. The "cord" in question is a bunch of spun thread spread to a particular shape for a definite commercial purpose. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
