Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chimanlal Voerchand vs Additional Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 6 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: [1988]68STC278(MP)
Author: N.D. Ojha
Bench: N.D. Ojha
JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, C.J.
1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It carries on business of inter-State trade in grains. For the Diwali years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, it claimed exemption from sales tax in respect of subsequent sales, as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In regard to some of these transactions, the petitioner produced only declaration in form No. E-I and not the declaration in form No.C, whereas in regard to others, neither declaration in form No. E-I, nor the declaration in form No.C was produced. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur (respondent No.1) refused exemption in respect of both these transactions by his orders dated 23rd August, 1974, 8th April, 1975 and 26th May, 1975.
2. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner preferred revisions before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (respondent No.2). A consolidated order was passed by respondent No.2 on 17th August, 1977, whereby the order of respondent No.1 was upheld and the revisions were dismissed. It is these orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
3. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders, in so far as they refused exemption to the petitioner with regard to those transactions where neither declaration in form No. E-I, nor declaration in form No.C was produced, are correct and no exception can be taken. However, these orders with regard to such transactions where even though declaration in form No. E-I was produced, but declaration in form No.C was not produced, cannot be sustained in view of the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Shivnarayan Jagatnarayan [1978] 42 STC 315 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Prahalad Das Ramdas [1983] 52 STC 224.
4. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part and the impugned orders are quashed in so far as they have refused exemption from sales tax to the petitioner with regard to such transactions in respect of which even though declaration in form No. E-I was produced, but declaration in form No.C was not produced. The writ petition, in so far as it challenges the impugned orders refusing exemption with regard to such transactions in respect of which declaration in form No. E-I was not produced, fails.
5. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, the respondent No.1, is directed to pass a fresh order of assessment in the light of the observations made above. In view of the divided success, the parties shall bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of security may be refunded to the petitioner.