Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shelly Products vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 6 January, 1988
Equivalent citations: [1988]69STC18(MP)
Author: N.D. Ojha
Bench: N.D. Ojha
JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, C.J.
1. The Board of Revenue, Gwalior, which is the Tribunal constituted under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion under Section 44(1) of the Act:
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the dealer had taken due diligence to obtain C form and was not able to do so at the time of assessment, the Tribunal was justified in holding that their non-acceptance at the first appellate stage was proper ?
2. The necessary facts for answering the aforesaid question are that in proceedings for assessment for the financial year 1978-79, the assessee was not in a position to submit C form in respect of certain transactions at the time of assessment. The record of the case indicates that 6th February, 1980 was the date fixed before the assessing authority and on that date, time was prayed for to produce C form. The case was adjourned for 6th March, 1980 apparently to enable the assessee to file the said C form. On 6th March, 1980, further time was prayed for and 26th June, 1980 was fixed to enable the assessee to file C form. On 26th June, 1980, when the case was taken up, the assessee expressed its inability to file form C. No prayer on that date seems to have been made seeking further time for the purpose and consequently an order of assessment was passed. The matter was taken up in appeal by the assessee and a prayer was made for admission of form C in appeal. It was also asserted on behalf of the assessee that the assessing authority ought to have granted further opportunity to file form C. The appeal and the second appeal having been dismissed, an application was made by the assessee under Section 44(1) of the Act whereby the question aforesaid was referred to this Court.
3. It has been urged by learned counsel for the assessee that the assessing authority, in view of the proviso to Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, ought to have granted time to produce form C and committed an error in not doing so. We find it difficult to agree with this submission on the facts of the case. As already pointed out above, opportunity to file form C was granted by the assessing authority to the assessee twice, once on 6th February, 1980 and for the second time on 6th March, 1980. The assessee, however, expressed its inability to produce form C on 26th June, 1980 and on that date, no prayer for grant of any further time was made. Consequently it cannot be said that the assessing authority committed any error in the matter of granting time to the assessee for filing form C.
4. It has then been urged by learned counsel for the assessee that the appellate authority ought to have accepted form C and the view taken by the Tribunal that it could not be so accepted in appeal, was erroneous. We find it difficult to agree with this submission either. The instant case was one under the Central Sales Tax Act and the relevant provision in this behalf in the Act is contained in Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Section 8(4) of the aforesaid Act and Rule 12(7) of the aforesaid Rules use the words "prescribed authority" as the authority before which form C is contemplated to be filed. They do not permit production of the form "at the time of assessment" which is the term used in some other enactments. This question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in K.M. Chopra and Company v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore [1967] 19 STC 46 and on a construction of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, it was held that the declaration in form C had to be furnished to the prescribed authority.
5. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar of Rewa [1975] 35 STC 46, the decision in the case of K.M. Chopra [1967] 19 STC 46 (MP) came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court and it was pointed out that on the language of Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which required furnishing of the declaration to the "prescribed authority", no exception could be taken to the view expressed in the case of K. M. Chopra [1967] 19 STC 46 (MP). It is in this view of the matter that we are of the opinion that the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in holding that the declaration in form C could have been filed only before the prescribed authority and not before the appellate authority.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.