K.A. Nayar, J.
COLOURGRAPHS
Versus
SALES TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER.
O.P. No. 12413 of 1991-C and O.P. No. 221 of 1992-B
Decided On: Decided On : 06-02-1992
C Form - Denial of C form to petitioner - Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 8, Rule 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, particularly focusing on the entitlement of the petitioner to obtain 'C' form. The court emphasized the right of the registered dealer to obtain 'C' forms and the limitations on the authority to refuse or withhold the forms. The judgment highlighted the power of the registering authority to cancel or amend the registration certificate and the consequences of misuse of the 'C' form. The court referred to various precedents to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and concluded that the petitioners were entitled to 'C' form as long as their registration certificates were not cancelled.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an offset printing press owner registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, sought 'C' form certificates to purchase goods at concessional rates. The Kerala Government issued a notification granting complete exemption from tax under the State Act to printing presses. However, the petitioner was denied 'C' form despite repeated requests, leading to the filing of writ petitions for mandamus.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to 'C' form as long as their registration certificates were not cancelled. It emphasized the limitations on the authority to refuse or withhold the forms and highlighted the power of the registering authority to cancel or amend the registration certificate in case of misuse.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to 'C' form under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, despite being engaged in a works contract business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions, particularly the entitlement of registered dealers to obtain 'C' forms, the limitations on the authority to refuse or withhold the forms, and the consequences of misuse of the forms. The court also relied on precedents to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The original petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were held entitled to 'C' form as long as their registration certificates were not cancelled.
K. A. NAYAR, J. - The common question that arises for consideration in both the writ petitions is whether the C form can be denied to the petitioner. Since the facts are not very material, I am briefly referring the facts in O.P. No. 12413 of 1991 only. Petitioner is an offset printing press owner and is registered both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Rules. The business of the petitioner confined to supply of printed materials, folders, duplex board, cartons, posters and other advertising materials. Petitioner has to secure large stock of papers, inks, chemicals, cotton wastes, with films, polyester films and other allied products which are necessary for manufacturing the goods that are needed by the customers. These articles are purchased using "C" form from outside the State. Petitioner can purchase these items at concessional rate, provided they are supported by "C" form, issued by the respondents. In the absence of "C" form certificate petitioner has to pay enhanced rate of tax at 10 per cent. The "C' form certificates are usually issued by the respondents in book form, each book having not less than 25 blank certificates. These certificates are filled up with the value of purchases from outside Kerala and forwarded to the seller there and he despatches such goods supported by "C" form certificate. Petitioner was obtaining the goods on "C" form for the past several years, i.e., from 1976 onwards.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners, by Notification G.O. (P) No. 41/88/TD dated 30th March, 1988, issued by the Kerala Government under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act which came into force on 1st day of April, 1988, as S.R.O. No. 364/88 complete exemption in respect of tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is granted in favour of the printing presses. Therefore, petitioner need not pay sales tax under the State Act.
3. After this notification, when the petitioner requested for "C' form on 26th April, 1991, and repeated the demand on 6th August, 1991 by exhibit P2, petitioner was not given "C" form. Hence petitioner approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondents to continue the supply of "C' form book to the petitioner without interruption.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, which is, agreed to be treated as counter in both the writ petitions. In the counter it is admitted that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act. But the petitioner is not entitled to get "C" forms issued to him as the conditions prescribed in sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, are not fulfilled in his case. Under the Central Sales Tax Act a person who is furnishing form C to a selling dealer is liable to pay Central sales tax only at the rate of 4 per cent. as against 10 per cent. otherwise payable. This concession, according to the respondent, is available only to those who purchased goods for purposes specified in section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. That means, a dealer who is not intending to use the proposed purchase in any of the purposes enumerated is not entitled to purchase goods.
5. The petitioner is admittedly carrying on business in printing. He undertakes printing on various items such as marriage invitation letters, bill books and such other items, though this is denied in reply. It is also stated that the petitioner does not undertake buying and selling of any goods. The petitioner's business, according to the respondent, is in the nature of works contract and therefore, goods are not purchased for resale or for manufacture for resale. There is also no transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the specific type of works contract that the assessee undertakes. It is stated that the inv
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.