COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX versus PRABHUDAYAL PREM NARAIN

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 26-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX 
v. 
PRN3HUDAYAL PREM NARAIN 
JUL y 26, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.) 
U.P. Sales Tax Act 1948/U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. Section 
3D(7)(b)/Rule 12B & Notification No. ST-111-2712-Exemption from 
tax-Dealer entitled to claim only when declaration forms furnished. 
A 
B 
The respondent a dealer in. pulses, claimed exemption under 
C 
s. 30(2) of the U-P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1977-78 
contending that the purchases affected by him prior to 1.5.1977 could 
not be subject to tax. The assessing authority and the Assistant Com-
. missioner (Judicial) rejected the assessee's claim for exemption from 
~. 
D 
On appeal,_ the Tribunal was of the view that since the assessee 
had not furnished Form III-C(l), he was not entitled to any exemption 
under s. 3-D of the Act. 
The High c;::ourt all()wed the revision petition on the ground that 
E 
as the Tribunal had not gone into the proof furnished by the assessee 
before the assessing authority and the Assistant Commissioner (Judi-
cial) in support of his claim for exemption, and remitted the matter 
back to the Tribunal, directing i_t to consider the question whether the 
dealer was entitled to get any exemption on the basis of the evidence 
that he had furnish~. 
F 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
Revenue-appellant that the High Court was wrong because, in view of s. 
30(7-B) of the Act the assessee was not entitled to lead any other evi• 
dence apart from submitting the registered dealer Form No. III-C(2). 
Allowing the AJ?peai, 
HELD: 1. The High Cour,t \VBS in error in directing the Tribunal 
to consider the ma~er on further evidence. The assessee is entitled to 
exemption only on furnishing the declaration forms. Since he did not do 
G 
so, he is not entitled to the exemption. [586E] 
ff 
583 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Under section 3-0(7) declaration forms have been prescribed 
by Rule 12-B. The provision should be construed as mandatory. If the 
dealer had not furnished the required declaration forms in order to be 
.entitled for exemption, he cannot file any other evidence which he re-
quires to be considered by the taXing authorities. 15860] 
B 
Kedar Nath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer & 
c 
Ors., 16 STC 607, referred to. 
Mis Govind Ram Tansukh Ram Tansukh Rai & Co. Budaun v. 
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., [1985] UPTC 1960, approved. 
Abdul Ghani Banne Khan v. CST., 1982 UPTC 665, over-ruled. 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2506(NT) of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18-8-1982 of the Allahabad' 
D 
High Court in S.T.R. No. 89 of 1982. 
E 
S.C. Manchanda, R."S. Rana and A.K. Srivastava for the Peti-
tioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Notice was issued on this special 
leave application stating that the matter would be disposed of finally at 
the notice stage itself. None has appeared pursuant to the notice. We 
have considered the matter and heard Shri Manchanda, counsel for the 
petitioner. Special leave is granted and the appeal is disposed of by the 
F 
judgment herein. 
This appeal arises ftom the judgment and order of the High 
Court of Allahabad, dated 18th August, 1982. The said judgment was 
delivered on a revision application filed before the High Court. The 
application related to the assessment year 1977-78 under the U .P. 
G 
Salex Tax Act. The first question involved before the High Court of 
Allahabad was whether the purchase of pulses effected by the assessee 
prior to 1.5.1977 could be subjected to tax under Section 30(2) of the 
Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal held that these could be so subjected. 
The High Court referred to the Notification No. ST-111-2712/X-
H 
6(2)-77 U.P. Act XV-48-order-77 and held that the contention of the 
COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. P.P. NARAIN [MUKHARJI, J.J 
585 
assessee could not be accepted that he had purchased the pulses in 
qu~stion before 1st May, 1977. There was no dispute on this conien-
A 
ti on raised subsequently; The oniy contention that was urged before 
the High Court was that the Asstt. Commissioner (Judicial), was about 
granting relief to the assessee in respect of his turnover on pulses of , 
Rs.3,75,500 to the extent of Rs.3,19,673 on the basis of certain evi-
dences that had been produced before the assessing authority and the 
B 
Asstt. Commissioner. The Tribunal was of the view that since the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.