ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 07-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.,. . 
A 
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
JANUARY 7, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND A.R. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
1' 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-Section 6A(2)-lnter-State Sale-legal 
fiction created-Effect of-Acceptance of Form F filled by the assessee-
c Held, legal .fiction operates-Order accepting Form F becomes final and 
cannot be reopened unless found illegal/void/voidable-Tamil Nadu General 
Sales Tax Act, 1959-Section 16. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 11-Res Judicata-Applicability 
of-Held, would not apply where jurisdictional question wrongly decided. 
D 
Interpretation of Statute-Must be interpreted having regard to the /ext 
' 
and context-Stall/le must be read in its entirety-General and special 
"i-
provision-Special provision prevails over general provision-Central Sales 
Tax Act, 19.56-Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, 1959. 
E 
Words and Phrases-legal Fiction-Meaning of 
The appellants were manufacturers of commercial vehicles. They 
were registered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and 
also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They had several regional sales offices 
in States other than Tamil Nadu. The regional sales offices were registered 
F under the sales tax law governing the concerned State. The appellants 
transferred vehicles to the regional sales offices for marketing the products 
under the cover of stock transfer invoices and local sales tax was collected 
and paid by the regional offices on such vehicles. The appellants filled 
Form Fin terms of Section 6 A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in Tamil 
G 
Nadu stating that the transactions constituted transfer of stock and there 
was no inter-State sale. After enquiry, the assessing officer accepted Form 
F filed by the appellants holding that that there was only a stock transfer 
to the depots of the appellants situated in other States and no inter-State 
"' 
~ 
sale had taken place. The assessing authorities, thereafter, sought to review 
the order accepting Form F. The appellants contested the reopening of 
H 
306 
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. r. STATE 
307 
• i 
the assessment on the ground that it cannot be reopened as under the A 
provisions of Section 6 A (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the 
assessment attained finality on acceptance of Form F. However, the 
assessing authority reopened proceedings, held that the transfers made by 
the appellants were inter-State sales and also imposed penalty on the 
appellants. 
The appellants filed writ petition before the High Court, which was 
, '( 
dismissed. On appeal to the Court, a two-Judge Bench of the Court held 
that it was permissible for the assessing authority to reopen a proceeding 
even after acceptance of Form F. (As/wk Leyland v. Union of India and Ors., 
B 
1199719sec10). 
c 
Pursuant to the judgment of the Court, an order of reassessment was 
passed imposing tax on the appellants on the sales made by the regional 
sales offices of the appellants. 
The appellants filed appeal to the Court and contended that when D 
an order is passed by the assessing authority after holding an enquiry 
accepting the Form F declaration made by the assessee, the same could 
'<...I' 
not be reopened. The judgment of the Court in Ashok Leyland v. Union of 
India and Ors., [199719SCC10 therefore, required reconsideration. The 
respondent contended, inter alia, that the earlier judgment of the Court 
would operate as res judicata and the issue raised by the appellants could E 
not be re-examined. 
Disposing of the appeal and allowing the appellants to move the High 
Court for redressal of their grievance, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the rules of evidence, there exist several presumptions. · F 
These presumptions may be rebuttable or irrebuttable. lrrebuttable 
presumptions are referred to as conclusive presumptions as they stand as 
conclusive proof of certain facts and are open to challenge only on the 
meagre grounds. In several cases validity of rules of conclusive 
presumptions have been upheld. 1336-F, G; 337-C! 
G 
Stumpf v. Mantgome1y, (1924) I 01 OKL 256; Re Eric Holmes Ltd., 
1196512 All ER 333; lnzar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, 119621Supp.3 
'< 
SCR 235; M. Jlenugopa/ v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation 
of India, Machilipatnam, A. P. and Anr., 119941 2 SCC 323; The Municipal 
Board, Hapur v. Raghuvendra Kripal and Ors., AIR (1966) SC 693; State of H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) I S.C.R. 
A Madras v. Mis Radio and Electdcals ltd.. 11
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.