TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of dealing in iron and steel and as fabricators', processors' and manufacturers' representative of iron and steel goods and is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ("the 41 Act" for short). It is the case of the applicant that it sells iron and steel goods which are declared goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and hence by virtue of section 15(a) thereof, the tax payable in respect of the said declared goods within the State shall not exceed 4 per cent of the sale or purchase price of the said goods and only to the extent of 2 per cent if declaration forms are furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chasing dealers on the condition that such purchasers would supply the declaration in form No. XXIV though, in fact, these declarations were not supplied to the applicant, by the registered purchasing dealers who were not traceable during the material period for completion of assessment. Similarly, declaration in form No. XXIVA could not be produced in respect of sales to the tune of Rs. 2,23,678.48 for the same reason. As a result, the applicant is liable to pay Rs. 41,739 for nonproduction of form No. XXIV and Rs. 2,23,678.48 for non-production of form No. XXIVA. It is beyond the control of the applicant to procure the relevant declaration forms from the registered purchasing dealers who are not still available or traceable in the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to have collected the declaration forms against such sales from his buyers which the applicant chose not to do at his own risk and sweet-will and, therefore, acted in a most negligent and careless manner. For the purpose of claiming deduction and/or availing the concessional rate of taxes, production of declaration forms is mandatory and there can be no substitute for the same. It is not open to the applicant to produce other evidence to press that the sales to the registered dealers were for the purposes mentioned in the statute as has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607 which was also followed by this Tribunal in the case of Sunil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution. 7.. Mr. A.K. Roy Chowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant, referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Anil Kumar Dutta v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, reported in [1967] 20 STC 528. However, in that case, declaration forms had in fact been produced but had not been duly and correctly filled in by the purchasing dealers. Having regard to the same, the court held the omissions or errors in the declaration forms furnished by the purchasing dealers with regard to his registration certificate or date of registration or the name should not be treated as vital or substantial as to reject the declaration form and the claim based thereon. The decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held to be directory. However, in that case the purchasing dealer was an exporter and not registered under the 41 Act. In such a circumstance, it was held that assessing authority may allow deduction if the dealer otherwise establishes that sale was in the course of export, in view of the fact that there is no rule laying down the mode of proof of a sale to an unregistered dealer in the course of export covered by section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and section 5(2)(a)(v) of the 1941 Act. Citing a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 196 (State of Madras v. V.G. Row) which was also followed in AIR 1957 SC 896 (Virendra v. State of Punjab), Mr. Roy Chowdhury argued that the test of reasonableness should be app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng exemption is held to be mandatory, it is ultra vires the Constitution, no serious arguments were advanced. In any case, the requirement of production of declaration form from the purchasing dealer cannot be held to be unreasonable. It is also difficult to understand how this requirement can be said to create any classification, let alone it being unreasonable, as between dealers subject to tax. The law requires of dealers claiming exemption or concessional rate of tax to produce the declaration form as appropriate and has not made any distinction whatsoever. The failure or inability of a dealer to do so and, consequently, having his claim disallowed does not alter the picture in any way. It is a fault or omission for which he has to bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
