Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
sales tax - declaration form - rule 12 (3) of central sales tax (registration and turnover) rules, 1957 - whether additional district judge was justified in directing notified authority to accept photostat copies of counterfoils of declaration in form c of turnover in respect of sale in course of inter-state trade - high court concluded that requirement of rule 12 (3) not complied with and answered question in negative - assessee filed appeal - apex court held, language of provision was rightly applied by high court. - order1. the high court was called upon to answer the following question : whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the additional district judge- was justified in directing the notified authority to accept the photostat copies and the counter-foils of the declaration in form 'c' of the turnover of rs. 3,59,497.38 in respect of the sales stated to have been made by the respondent in the course of inter-state trade and commerce.2. the high court answered it in the negative and in favour of the revenue. the assessee is in appeal. 3. the assessee sold 12 trucks, to m/s. tosh metal and alloye industries (p) ltd., which, subsequently, went into liquidation. the purchaser did not send the requisite 'c' form declarations to the assessee. the official liquidator of the high court of calcutta informed the assessee that the records of the company in liquidation indicated the said purchase and 8 sales tax 'c' forms had been issued by the company in liquidation ; and that no 'c' form appeared to have been issued in respect of the remaining 4 sales. an application was made by the assessee to the high court for directions to the official liquidator that he should issue duplicates of the 8 'c' forms which had been issued. the learned single judge who disposed of the application directed the official liquidator only to permit the assessee to take photostat copies of the 8 'c' forms declarations. the assessees obtained these photostat copies and submitted the same to the sales tax authorities. 4. the sales tax authorities turned them down relying upon rule 12, of the . central sales tax (registration and turnover) rules, 1957, which pertained to the 'c' form declaration. sub-rule (3) thereof reads thus : where a declaration form furnished by the dealer purchasing the goods for the certificate furnished by the government has been lost, the dealer selling the goods, may demand from the dealer who purchased the goods or, as the case may be, from the government, which purchased the goods, a duplicate of such form or certificate and the same shall be furnished with the following declaration recorded in red ink and signed by the dealer or authorised officer of the government, as the case may be, on all the three portions of such form or certificate,- 'i hereby declare that this is the duplicate of the declaration form/certificate no... signed on... and issued to,...who is a registered dealer of (state) and whose registration certificate number is...'.5. the additional district judge, delhi, hearing the revision petition of the assessee against the order of the additional commissioner of sales tax, took the view that the furnishing of the photostat copies of the counterfoils of the 'c' form declaration should be taken to be compliance with rule 12(3) aforequoted and he directed the assessee to furnish an indemnity bond in the form required. 6. arising out of the order in revision, the question set out above was posed to the high court at the instance of the revenue. the high court came to the conclusion that the requirement of the rule had not been complied with and answered the question, as aforesaid, in favour of the revenue. 7. learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this was a hard case, that the assessee had done all that it could, and it could have done nothing more, having regard to the fact that the learned single judge of the calcutta high court had only permitted the assessee to take photostat copies of the 'c' form declarations and not directed the official liquidator to furnish duplicates of the 'c' form declarations. he submitted that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of rule 12(3). he also relied upon the judgment of this court in commissioner of income-tax v. j.h. gotla, reported in : [1985]156itr323(sc) . 8. in our view, in the first place, the assessee had not done all that it could; it could, and should, have preferred an appeal against the order of the learned single judge and persisted in its application for obtaining from the official liquidator duplicates of the 'c' form declarations, as required by rule 12(3). since it did not, in the face of the clear language of the rule, its case can hardly be said to be a hard case. the judgment cited by learned counsel has no application because that was a case where the language of the statute was found to be ambiguous the language of the provision here is clear and was rightly applied by the high court. 9. the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The High Court was called upon to answer the following question :

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional District Judge- was justified in directing the notified authority to accept the photostat copies and the counter-foils of the declaration in form 'C' of the turnover of Rs. 3,59,497.38 in respect of the sales stated to have been made by the respondent in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.

2. The High Court answered it in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee is in appeal.

3. The assessee sold 12 trucks, to M/s. Tosh Metal and Alloye Industries (P) Ltd., which, subsequently, went into liquidation. The purchaser did not send the requisite 'C' form declarations to the assessee. The official liquidator of the High Court of Calcutta informed the assessee that the records of the company in liquidation indicated the said purchase and 8 sales tax 'C' forms had been issued by the company in liquidation ; and that no 'C' form appeared to have been issued in respect of the remaining 4 sales. An application was made by the assessee to the High Court for directions to the official liquidator that he should issue duplicates of the 8 'C' forms which had been issued. The learned single Judge who disposed of the application directed the official liquidator only to permit the assessee to take photostat copies of the 8 'C' forms declarations. The assessees obtained these photostat copies and submitted the same to the sales tax authorities.

4. The sales tax authorities turned them down relying upon Rule 12, of the . Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which pertained to the 'C' form declaration. Sub-rule (3) thereof reads thus :

Where a declaration form furnished by the dealer purchasing the goods for the certificate furnished by the Government has been lost, the dealer selling the goods, may demand from the dealer who purchased the goods or, as the case may be, from the Government, which purchased the goods, a duplicate of such form or certificate and the same shall be furnished with the following declaration recorded in red ink and signed by the dealer or authorised officer of the Government, as the case may be, on all the three portions of such form or certificate,-

'I hereby declare that this is the duplicate of the declaration form/certificate No... signed on... and issued to,...who is a registered dealer of (State) and whose registration certificate number is...'.

5. The Additional District Judge, Delhi, hearing the revision petition of the assessee against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, took the view that the furnishing of the photostat copies of the counterfoils of the 'C' form declaration should be taken to be compliance with Rule 12(3) aforequoted and he directed the assessee to furnish an indemnity bond in the form required.

6. Arising out of the order in revision, the question set out above was posed to the High Court at the instance of the Revenue. The High Court came to the conclusion that the requirement of the rule had not been complied with and answered the question, as aforesaid, in favour of the Revenue.

7. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this was a hard case, that the assessee had done all that it could, and it could have done nothing more, having regard to the fact that the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court had only permitted the assessee to take photostat copies of the 'C' form declarations and not directed the official liquidator to furnish duplicates of the 'C' form declarations. He submitted that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 12(3). He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. J.H. Gotla, reported in : [1985]156ITR323(SC) .

8. In our view, in the first place, the assessee had not done all that it could; it could, and should, have preferred an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge and persisted in its application for obtaining from the official liquidator duplicates of the 'C' form declarations, as required by Rule 12(3). Since it did not, in the face of the clear language of the rule, its case can hardly be said to be a hard case. The judgment cited by learned Counsel has no application because that was a case where the language of the statute was found to be ambiguous The language of the provision here is clear and was rightly applied by the High Court.

9. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.