T. Kochu Thommen, J.
C.P.K. TRADING COMPANY
Versus
ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY, AND ANOTHER
O.P. No. 2659 of 1980 N
Decided On: Decided On : 24-02-1983
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Assessment Orders - Section 6A - Rule 5A - Rule 12 - Section 13(3) and (4)
Fact of the Case:
Exhibits P3 and P4 are orders of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner claimed exemption under section 6A of the Act, but it was not granted due to failure to furnish details under rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contended that the State rule had been superseded by rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justification in the contention that the State rule had been superseded or repealed by the Central rule. It held that the petitioner was required to comply with the legal requirements and dismissed the original petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim for exemption under section 6A, the requirement to furnish details under rule 5A, and the contention of supersession of the State rule by the Central rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the relevant provisions of section 6A, rule 5A, rule 12, and section 13(3) and (4) to determine the obligations of the petitioner and the authority of the State and Central Governments to prescribe particulars for declarations.
Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.
DR. KOCHU THOMMEN, J.
Exhibits P3 and P4 which are impugned are orders of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the "Act"), for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner had claimed exemption under section 6A of the Act. The exemption was not granted for the reason that the petitioner failed to furnish the details under rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, made by the State Government (I shall call it the "State Rules") under section 13(3) and (4) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner-assessee is that the said rule made by the State Government has been superseded by rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, made by the Central Government (I shall call it the "Central Rules") under section 13(1) in respect of transactions falling within section 6A, and accordingly insistence on compliance with the provisions of rule 5A of the State Government is unjustified.
2. It has to be stated that the petitioner approached this Court without resorting to an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authorities. Be that as it may, I see no justification in the contention that the State rule has been superseded or repealed by the Central rule. I shall now examine the relevant provisions. Section 6A provides :
'6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale :- (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods.
(2) If the assessing authority is satisfied after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) are true, he may, at the time of, or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale."
The case of the petitioner is that the goods were sent by him to an agent or dealer in another State for the purpose of effecting a sale in that State. The movement of the goods was not occasioned by or pursuant to any sale here. In other words there was no sale in the course of inter-State trade.
3. The burden to show that the movement of the goods took place otherwise than by way of sale to attract section 6A is upon the dealer. If the burden is not discharged by him, such movement is liable to be treated as in the course of inter-State sale. That is what has been done by the impugned orders. Rule 5A of the State Rules reads :
"5A. Every principal, who claims exemption on the sales of goods on consignment account through agents outside the State shall maintain the following records, namely :-
(a) A register showing the name and full address of the agent to who goods were consigned together with description of the goods so despatched of sale, on each occasion and their quantity and value;
(b) The originals of authorisations sent to the agent for the sale of the goods;
Note :- Copies of these authorisations and description of
AI
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.