LexINDIA AGENCIES (REGD.), BANGALORE versus ADDLITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGLORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, INDIA AGENCIES (REGD.), BANGALORE v. ADDLITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BAN GLORE DECEMBER 16, 2004 [S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Central Sales Tax Act : Section 8-Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules' 195-Inter state trade or Commerce-Concessional rate of sales tax-To avail the benefit of-Requirement-Held, the requirement prescribed under the Rules are mandatory and strict compliance of the same A B c is called for. D Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules' 1957-Filing of return- Furnishing of Original Form 'C'-To avail concessional rate of tax-Held, Not a mere formality or technicality-Rule being clear and categorical, can't be liberally construed but should be construed strictly-Rule consistent with the provisions of the Central Sales Act. E Interpretation of Statutes : Fiscal legislation-Taxing Statutes-Has to be construed strictly-- Can't be liberally construed. F Statute law-Provision clear and unambiguous-Hardships-Softning the rigour of-Can be by way of legislation, subordinate or delegated- Can !f. b.e ,/Jy the court. For the inter state trade effected by the appellant, the Assessing G authority disallowed the benefit of Concessional rate of sales tax cor- responding to the 'duplicate' C-Forms and the indemnity bond fur- nished for the loss ofForm-C marked as original. Being of the view that the assessing authorities should not have denied the benefit, the Joint Commissioner, upsetting the order, directed to accept the duplicate H 987 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A Form 'C' and the indemnity bond and allow the benefit to the appellant. B The matter was taken up before the additional commissioner concurred with the assessing authorities and set aside the order of the Joint Com- missioner. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed against. Hence this appeal. It was contended by the appellant that filing of original portion of the Form 'C' is not mandatory but directory. In case the original portion of Form 'C' is lost and the selling dealer furnishes the indemnity bond together with the portion marked 'duplicate' of the Form 'C', that would amount to sufficient compliance for the levy of concessional rate C of tax. It was further contended that having lodged Police complaint regarding the lost F_orms and having undertaken all possible efforts is order to confirm the transactions from the purchasing dealers like obtaining attested copies of the triplicate and also a letter from them confirming the transactions, the bonafide of the appellant was not in D dispute and also the bonafide of the efforts made to obtain duplicate Form 'C' from its customers in terms of the Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax rules, the approach of the authorities was inequitable and was to the great hardship. Further, the High Court ought to have been less rigid in interpreting rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) E Rules, 1957 requiring filing of the 'original' portion of Form 'C' alongwith the return to claim concessional rate of Sales tax. F Dismissing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1. The Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 and Rule 12(2) and 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Regis- tration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 has to be strictly construed. The selling dealer not complying with the said provisions is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax. In order to claim concessional rate of tax, the original C-Form has to G be attached to the return as provided under Rule 6(b )(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957. [1002-F-G] Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Cal- cutta and Ors., (1965) 3 SCR 626 and Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. v. H Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, (1997) IO SCC 486, followed. INDIA AGENCIES (REGD.) BANGALORE v. ADDL. COMMNR. OF COMM., TAXES, BANGALORE 989 Maganese Ore (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya A Pradesh, (1991) 83 STC 116, distinguished on facts. 1.2. It is not a mere formality or technicality but it is intended to achieve the object of preventing the forms being misused for the com- mission of fraud and collision with a view to evade payment of taxes and as such Rule 6(b)(ii) which is clear and categoric cannot be liberally construed but it should be construed strictly. Without producing the original of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.