9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full for the period 1st November, 1962, to 31st March, 1963. It may be mentioned here that section 6A was inserted in the statute book with effect from 1st November, 1962. Subsequently, proceedings under section 18(1) of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer on 30th November, 1965, on the ground that the concessional rate of tax was wrongly allowed to the assessee from 1st November, 1962, the date on which section 6A came into force. The assessing officer was of the view that the allowance of concessional rate of tax should have been made from 3rd January, 1963, which was the date on which rules 4A and 8A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), were notified. These proceedings culminated in a revised order of assessment dated 23rd December, 1965, in which the concessional rate of tax was allowed to the assessee only on Rs. 15,84,397.71 being the turnover on the commodities specified for the period between 3rd January, 1963, and 31st March, 1963. The dealer having gone up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and its appeal having failed, it went up in revision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 28th November, 1970, held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng firms ought to be treated as valid, was the date of issue of such certificates, i.e., 14th December, 1962, and that no retrospective or retroactive operation could be given to the validity of such certificates with effect from 1st November, 1962, which the competent authority, in the first instance, had purported to do. Mr. Ramanugrah Prasad, the learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that on a reading of the provisions aforesaid, there was no bar against the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Act or the Rules so as to preclude them from granting a certificate under section 6A(1)(b) with effect from a date prior to the date of its issue extending back either up to the date of the commencement of the certificate of registration of the purchaser (as a registered dealer) under the Act or the date of commencement of section 6A itself, whichever was later. As in the present case both the date of commencement of the statutory provision and the certificate under section 6A(1) of the Act were with effect from 1st November, 1962, for the purposes of section 6A, the competent authorities had not in any way acted without jurisdiction or in any manner illegally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in respect of which the purchaser has been granted a certificate by the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period. This is the first condition, which has certainly been fulfilled in the instant case. The second prerequisite condition for the grant of such concessional rate is the requirement under subsection (2) of fulfilling the assessee's obligation of furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form duly filled up and signed by the purchaser in the prescribed manner by the selling dealer. There is no controversy even with regard to the fulfilment of the second condition in the present case. The question, however, is as to what is the true meaning and purport of the words "in respect of which the purchaser has been granted a certificate by the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period". On behalf of the revenue, it is conceded that the words "has been granted" at the end of section 6A(1) presuppose the grant of a certificate at the time when the sale is made and this submission is further sought to be reinforced by the learned standing counsel on behalf of the department with reference to the words "to the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case covered by clause (b) of section 6A(1) the certificate can be made operative and effective under that provision of statute for the same period as the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer itself. In other words, the competent authority is fully empowered, while issuing such a certificate, to make it valid for a period co-terminus and co-extensive with the certificate of registration itself. There is nothing in sub-rule (5)(a) which deprives the competent authority of his jurisdiction to confer operativeness on the certificate for the purposes of section 6A(1)(b) with effect from a date which is actually anterior to the date of actual issue of the certificate under section 6A. This view is rather reinforced and very much focused to attention juxtaposed, as it is, to sub-rule (5)(b) which covers the case of certificate under section 6A(1)(c) and specifically lays down that in such cases the certificate shall be valid for 3 months "from the date of its issue or such longer period..." In a certificate under section 6A(1)(c), therefore, the competent authority is powerless to make it operative with effect from any date prior to the date of its issue. And, the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of relief to an assessee for no fault of his merely because the departmental authorities, for whatever reason, may take some time in actually issuing such a certificate? Can it then be said that the purchaser and the dealer who sells to such a purchaser, who have actually done all that was required of them by the statute to be done, should be made to suffer merely because of the procedural delays in the grant of such certificates? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, can be one and one only: the purchaser or the dealer dealing with him cannot, in the absence of anything to the contrary, either expressly or by necessary intendment, be made so to suffer. Rule 8A of the Rules in this context is relevant inasmuch as it says that a dealer who claims that any amount of his turnover should be assessed to tax at a concessional rate under section 6A shall substantiate such a claim by producing the purchase order, if any, cash memoranda or details and a true declaration in writing in form IX, etc., by the purchaser that the goods which are the subject of sale are specified in the certificate of the purchaser and are required by him for the purpose specified therein. Such a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed authority powerless to grant a certificate and make it operative from a date prior to the date of its issuance. In principle, the view that I have taken is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab[1962] 13 S.T.C. 180 (S.C.). The assessee in the case of Mathra Parshad(1) was registered as a dealer under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and was assessed to sales tax on manufactured tobacco. On 1st April, 1954, an Act came into force, called the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954. The Government which had the power to issue notification exempting certain articles from the levy of sales tax issued a notification on 27th September, 1954, and included manufactured tobacco as one of the exempted articles in the schedule of exemptions. It was contended in that case on behalf of the revenue that since the notification regarding exemption was made on 27th September, 1954, the dealer in that case could not claim the benefit of exemption from any prior date. While repelling this contention on behalf of the department, Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, speaking for the majority view, posed a question at page 184: "D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
