Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. These 8 transactions are said to have taken place on 10th June, 1968, 26th June, 1968, and 28th August, 1968. By the time the assessment was made and the further proceedings took place the purchasing company had gone into liquidation. But the assessed was able to ascertain from the liquidator of the said company the information that the records of the company pertaining to the Karnal branch indicated purchases from the assessed-company and that eight sales tax C forms dated 12th February, 1969 (and not 14th February, 1969, as mentioned in the letter to the official liquidator), had been issued by the purchasing company against the relevant bills of the petitioner-company, Thereupon the assessed made a petition to the High Court of Calcutta for directions to the official liquidator to issue duplicates of these C forms which according to the petitioner-company had not been received by it. On 21th March, 1974, the company Judge of the Calcutta High Court passed an order directing that the assessed-company may be allowed to take photostat copies at its own cost of the counterfoils of the 8 sales tax declaration forms available in the purchasing company's records. In pursuance of this order the petitioner-company obtained these photostat copies of the counterfoils of C form declarations dated 12th February, 1969. The learned Additional District Judge has accepted the furnishing of these photostat copies as sufficient compliance with rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules and as entitling the petitioner-company to the concessional rate of tax in respect of the above eight sales to the purchasing dealer. However, the learned Additional District Judge also directed by way of abundant caution that the petitioner-company should furnish an indemnity bond to the Sales Tax Officer indemnifying the Government against any loss of revenue by the user of the said C form declarations which had been lost to the extent of the loss of revenue occasioned to the department by the loss of the originals, if any.

"(4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner -

(a) a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; or

(b) ................"

8. Stopping here it will be clear that a dealer will not be entitled to the concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-State sales made by him unless he produced the declaration referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (4) stated above. The form of this declaration has been prescribed by rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Sub-rule (1) of rule 12 stipulates that the declaration should be in form C prescribed there under. Form C is a declaration divided into three parts with identical contents. The first part is the counterfoil. The second part is the duplicate and the third part is described as the original. This form contains, apart from the name of the purchasing dealer, his registration number, the date from which his registration is valid, and a certificate by him that the goods purchased from a particular dealer (details of which are to be given) are required for resale or use in manufacture or processing of goods for sale, etc., and are covered by the registration certificate issued to him under the Central Sales Tax Act. It has to bear the signature and status of the person signing the declaration and also the name and address of the seller and the State to which he belongs. The form itself makes it clear that the counterfoil is to be retained by the purchasing dealer. The duplicate is to be handed over to the selling dealer and the original is also to be handed over to the selling dealer in order to enable him to file the same before the sales tax authorities from whom he claims a deduction in respect of the sale covered thereby. We shall refer to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules which govern the issue as well as the utilisation of these forms. But before doing so we may extract the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 12 which make a specific provision regarding cases where a form of declaration is lost :

10. It appears to us that the observations of the Supreme Court in the above decision have full application to the provisions which we have to consider here. It has already been pointed out that the provisions of section 8(1) and 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act are not very different from those which the Supreme Court had to construe. If anything they are more categorical and make it more imperative that the production of a declaration form is a condition precedent for the availability of the concession. That apart the rules provide specifically for the contingency of a loss of a form of declaration. In such a case the selling dealer should approach the purchasing dealer for the issue of a duplicate along with a certificate as prescribed in the Rules. As far as we can see there is nothing to prevent any diligent assessed from obtaining the C form, if not contemporaneously with the transaction, at least not long thereafter and in case it is lost in transit, as had been alleged here, from obtaining a duplicate as provided for in rule 12(3). Nor has it been explained in this case why that was not done. The question, however, is whether the production by the assessed not of the duplicate form contemplated in rule 12(3) but a mere photostat copy of the counterfoil of the original form would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of rule 12(3). It is urged on behalf of the assessed that the production of the photostat copy is as good as the production of the original and should be treated as compliance with the provisions of rule 12(3). We are unable to accept this contention for a very important reason. What the assessed has now produced by way of photostat copy is only the counterfoil of the C forms that are said to have been issued on 12th February, 1969, by the purchasing company in favor of the assessed. It is claimed that the original and the duplicate of the above counterfoil had been lost. Obviously, since the purchasing company has gone into liquidation, the liquidator is not in a position to personally vouch for the transaction which the company had entered into and he could say nothing more than that the counterfoil is on the record of the company. He could not further commit himself to issue a duplicate certificate coupled with a declaration that the duplicate that is being issued is a duplicate of the declaration form originally issued to the selling dealer. Sri Chawla pointed out to us that the requirement in rule 12(3) is intended to meet cases of fraud, for an unscrupulous assessed could manipulate the form in such a way that while the counterfoil is issued in favor of one selling dealer the original and the duplicate parts might be issued to a different selling dealer. If that were done the selling dealer getting the original and duplicate portions would be able to claim a concessional rate of tax by producing those two documents before his Sales Tax Officer. On the other hand, another dealer could on the basis of the counterfoil or a photostat copy thereof be able to obtain relief under section 8(1) also. This could be checked only if all the counterfoils were checked with original foils but, since sales are spread over several States, such a check could be only by way of random check and most of the cases of fraud in this way would escape detection, by ensuring that the purchasing dealer is to report such losses and issue a duplicate with a certificate and also provide indemnity, the State is enabled to keep a check over case of such losses, compel the purchasing dealer to certify that the foil lost corresponds to the counterfoil and to ensure that, in case the mischief is detected, it would be possible to take civil or criminal action against the purchasing dealer. In all fairness to the assessed, Sri Chawla does not suggest that any such thing has happened in this case but only emphasises that there is a reason behind the insistence in rule 12(3) that when a form is lost the person who originally issued the form should issue a duplicate and also a certificate which will satisfy the authorities that it was the duplicate of the form originally issued and that the selling dealer should produce this duplicate in order to avail of the benefit of section 8(1). To illustrate with reference to the present case, while it is no doubt true that the records of the company show that the counterfoil in the possession of the purchasing company showed the assessed as the selling dealer in these transactions, there is nothing before the authorities to ensure that the original and duplicate parts pertaining to these declaration forms had also been issued only to the present assessed. The assessed is not in a position to say that because according to it these forms were never received by it; on the other hand, the purchasing dealer cannot vouch for the same because the company is no longer in business and the official liquidator is not in a position to say anything more than that the original counterfoils show the name of the assessed in respect of these transactions.

11. These arguments of Sri Chawla also assume great importance in view of the stringent provisions contained in the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules regarding the issue and utilisation of these declaration forms. Rule 4 requires that a registered dealer who wishes to purchase goods from another such dealer on payment of tax at the rate applicable to sales between registered dealers for the purposes specified in the purchasing dealer's certificate of registration should obtain from his taxation officer blank declarations in form C. As soon as the transaction of purchase is entered by him he will have to fill in all the required particulars in the form in all its three parts, affix his signature in the space provided, retain the counterfoil with himself and issue the other two parts to the selling dealer. The proviso to rule 4(1) requires that the counterfoils of the declaration forms should be maintained by the dealer for a specified period apparently in order to facilitate checking, if considered necessary. These forms have to be obtained by him on payment of a nominal fee at the rate of 25 forms at a time. The declaration forms are to be kept by the dealer in safe custody and he will be personally responsible for the loss, destruction or theft of any such form or for loss to the Government revenue resulting from any such loss, destruction or theft. Sub-rule (5) of rule 4 requires the registered dealer to maintain registers in which should be entered a true and complete account of all C forms received by him from the sales tax authority. If any such form is lost, destroyed or stolen he should report the fact to the said authority immediately and also make necessary entries in the form C register. Under sub-rule (9) when a report is received about the loss, destruction or theft of a declaration form, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has to publish in the official Gazette the particulars of the form reported to be so lost, destroyed or stolen. If any unused declaration forms remain in stock, they will be surrendered to the sales tax authorities who issued them. Sub-rule (12) requires that when a blank or duly completed declaration form is lost in the custody of the purchasing dealer he has to provide an indemnity bond to the authority from whom the said form was obtained and if the form is lost while in the custody of the selling dealer he has to furnish an indemnity bond to the said authority for such loss. These rules emphasise the importance attached by the legislature to the declaration forms that have to be issued by the purchasing dealers. It is clear that these detailed provisions are intended as a measure of safeguard against possible misutilisation of the forms and also to ensure that relief is not obtained by more than one selling dealer in respect of the same declaration form by using the various parts of it differently. The emphasis in rule 12(3) that when a form is lost the purchasing dealer must issue a duplicate containing all the three parts with a declaration endorsed on each one of them also emphasises the importance which the Act attaches in order to ensure that the counterfoil retained by the dealer and the other parts according to the purchaser are identical on all respects and deal with the same transaction. The essence of these rules and regulations is that before a selling dealer is able to claim the benefit of concessional tax he should be able to produce the original and duplicate issued to him by the purchasing dealer in the first instance or a duplicate which will also contain these two portions of the form issued along with a declaration subscribed to by the purchasing dealer subsequently on the strength of his earlier records and his personal knowledge and for which he will have to account in due course to the sales tax authorities from whom he obtained these declaration forms. We me convinced on a perusal of the various provisions contained in the Act and the Rules that the requirement for the filing of a declaration form in a particular manner is not a mere formal or technical requirement but that it is intended as pointed out by the Supreme Court to achieve the object of preventing the forms from being used for the commission of fraud and also for purposes of administrative convenience. We are, therefore, of opinion that the production of the photostat copy of the counterfoil cannot be said to be strict or even substantial compliance of rule 12(3) and that by merely producing the photostat copy of the counterfoil it cannot be said that the Act and the Rules have been complied with.