TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957, do not provide admission of such secondary evidence?" 2.. The material facts are these: The relevant period of assessment is 10th November, 1970, to 18th October, 1971. The dealer claimed levy of sales tax at concessional rate on sale of "tendu patta" by it for the amount of Rs. 1,13,182. This claim by the dealer was rejected on the ground that it was not supported by production of a declaration in form C as required by the statutory provisions. The dealer had merely produced a photostat copy of the counterfoil of form C retained by the purchasing dealer and neither the original nor the duplicate which were with it as the selling dealer. The dealer's contention was that the original as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC) noticed the stringency of the provisions which permit giving of the concessional rate only when it is claimed in the manner prescribed and held that the benefit being made available, subject to the condition laid down, the person claiming that benefit can avail it only on fulfilling the condition in the manner prescribed by the statutory provision. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that unless the dealer has satisfied the prescribed condition in the prescribed manner, the benefit of the concessional rate claimed cannot be given. 4.. Sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act requires the dealer selling the goods to furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner, a declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion prescribed therein. This being so, the benefit claimed by the dealer on mere production of a photostat copy of the counterfoil of declaration in form C could not be given in accordance with law. The contrary conclusion reached by the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified. 5.. We find that a similar view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Polish Works [1970] 26 STC 480 and also by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bhoomi Reddy [1970] 26 STC 444. Learned counsel for the dealer referred to us a decision of the Madras High Court in Shansshia Oil Mills v. State of Madras [1967] 20 STC 481. We find that the question involved for decision by us was not considered and decided therei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
