TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order dated 7th March, 1975. The Assistant Commissioner, while scrutinising the assessment records, found that goods worth Rs. 16,680 which were returned during the assessment year 1969-70 were sold during the previous assessment year 1968-69. He, thereupon, revised the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer for the assessment year 1969-70 and disallowed the deduction made by the Sales Tax Officer of this amount of Rs. 16,680. An appeal filed by the applicant from this order before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was dismissed. Thereupon the applicant filed a revision application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the revision application. Thereupon, at the instance of the applicant, the following questions have been referred to us under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 9, sub-section (2), of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for our determination: "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Rs, 16,680 was not an allowable deduction as per section SA(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? (2) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of turnover in relation to any dealer liable to pay tax under this Act shall be the same as the period in respect of which he is liable to submit returns under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State". In the present case, therefore, the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, must be looked at in order to ascertain the period of turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under section 32 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, every registered dealer shall furnish a return for such period, by such dates and to such authority as may be prescribed. Under rule 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules ordinarily quarterly returns are required to be filed. With the permission of the Commissioner, a dealer can file an annual return. In certain circumstances a monthly return is required to be filed. It is not necessary to go into the details of these provisions. The assessee in the present case was required, by virtue of these provisions to file quarterly returns of sales and purchases covered by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3.. The form of return which is required to be filed by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act is prescribed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is less than the deduction claimed. To avoid such a contingency, the turnover must include the sale price of goods subsequently returned, i.e., deduction must be claimed from the same turnover which includes the sale of the goods in question. Mr. Jetly also submitted that turnover must be considered as turnover for the assessment year. We, however, do not find anything in the provisions of section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act or other relevant provisions referred to earlier which requires a dealer to claim such a deduction in the same assessment year in which the goods were sold. The substantive provision for such deduction is in section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act. This section in terms deals with the determination of "the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of this Act." The long title of the Central Sales Tax Act sets out the purposes for which the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was enacted. The relevant purpose would be the levy and collection of taxes on sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Chapter III of the Central Sales Tax Act which contains section 8A bears the heading "Inter-State sales tax". Thus the turnover which is to be calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equire that the goods should have been returned within the period of three months, because only in such a case both the sales and the return of the goods sold could be shown in the return dealing with the same turnover. Such a construction would deprive a dealer of his statutory right to claim a deduction in respect of goods returned to him within a period of six months. The respondent has however, not gone to the length of urging that the returned goods should be shown in the same quarterly return in which the goods were originally shown as sold. According to the respondent such returned goods can be shown in a different return for a different quarter provided it pertains to the same assessment year. This submission, however, is not supported by the language of section 8A. If turnover is taken to mean turnover as defined under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, it would refer to a quarterly turnover and not the turnover for the assessment year as submitted by the respondent. Such a narrow interpretation of section 8A would result in a dealer being deprived of the deduction granted under section 8A in a large number of cases. A deduction in respect of the goods which have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where there is excess even after such a set-off, the same can be refunded to the dealer. Section 43 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (which is applicable by virtue of the provisions of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) provides for refund by the Commissioner to a person of such excess amount of tax paid by him. Such a refund may be either by cash payment or at the option of the person, by deduction of such excess from the amount of tax and penalty due in respect of any other period. In our view the deduction which is granted under section 8A(1)(b) is for the purpose of determining the amount of inter-State sales tax payable by a dealer on his turnover of sales and he is entitled under the provisions of section 8A to claim a refund and/or adjustment or set-off of tax paid on such sales in respect of those goods which have been returned to him by the purchaser within six months from the date of delivery of the goods. 7.. We do not find any other provision in the Central Sales Tax Act enabling a dealer whose goods are returned in the next assessment year, to include a claim for deduction in respect of such goods in his previous year's turnover. Our attention was drawn t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of "turnover" would also lead to absurdity when returns of turnover are required to be filed quarterly. 8.. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Traders and Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1977] 40 STC 289 (FB). The decision in that case turned upon the provisions of section 13(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, before its amendment and rule 5-A(b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The language of this section is different from the language of section 8A. The decision of the Full Bench turned entirely upon the language of section 13(5) and the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In view of the provisions of section 5 of that Act the Madras High Court held that deduction in respect of the price of articles returned by the customers had to be claimed within a period of six months from the date of the sale. In the case which was under consideration before the Madras High Court such a claim for deduction had been made beyond the period of six months and the claim was therefore rejected. The case had been referred to the Full Bench because there had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh v. Vauhini Pictures Private Ltd. reported in [1962] 13 STC 847, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was required to consider rule 6(1)(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which was somewhat similar to rule 5(1)(b) under the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules considered in the case of Devi Films (Pvt.) Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 274. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no time-limit was prescribed for claiming deduction under the rule and the deduction could be claimed in an assessment year different from that in which the sale took place. Both these decisions turned upon the language of the rules which they were required to construe. Section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act is somewhat different from these rules. Hence the ratio of these decisions does not directly apply to the present case. 10.. In the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in [1979] 43 STC 492, the Kerala High Court was required to construe rule 9(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. Rule 9(b) dealt with the determination of taxable turnover. It was as follows: "9. Determination of taxable turnover.-In determining the taxable turnov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
