SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5

MADRAS HIGH COURT
A, J
State – Appellant
Versus
Assessee – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]

Table of Content
1. assessment and validity of c forms. (Para 1 , 2)
2. mandatory submission requirements under tax law. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. lack of discretion to condone statutory compliance failures. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

1. Out of the turnover of Rs.53,742 returned by the assessee respondent, Rs.34,560 was covered by C forms. The balance of the turnover was not covered by C forms and the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, accordingly assessed this latter part of the turnover at seven per cent under the Central Sales - tax Act. An appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, before whom the assessee admitted that the C forms relevant to the turnover of Rs.19000 and odd assessed at seven per cent had been received only after the final assessment was over. The final assessment by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in this case was on 15th June 1960, and the relevant forms were produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 27th July 1960. No explanation was given before the appellate authority for failure to produce these C forms earlier. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner therefore took the view that the transactions covered by


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top