SALES TAX OFFICER versus K. I. ABRAHAM

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 07-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

518 
SALES TAX OFFICER 
v. 
K. I. ABRAHAM 
April, 7, 1967 
[J. C. SHAH, S. M. SlKRl AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956) Ss. 8(4), 13(') 011d (4)-
Declaration Forms filed after prescribed time under 
Rules-If s. 8(4) 
complied with. 
Central Salts Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957-Rule 6(1) 1hlrd 
pr<YViso, 
validity. 
Sales-tax under s. 8 of the Central Sales-tax Act at the rate of 7% 
wa.. imposed on assessee's sales, for which declaration forms 'C' was 
fiietl after the prescribed date but before the order of assessment 
was 
made. The assessee filed a writ petition 
a1:ainst the assessment, which 
the High Court allowed. In appeal, this Court, 
HELD : The third proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax 
(Kerala) Rules, is ultra vlres of s. 9(4) read with s. 13(3) and (4) of 
the Central Sales Tax Act. Tho phrase "in the prescribed 
manner" 
occurring in s. 8(4) of the Act only confers power on the rule malting 
authority to prescribe a rule stating what particulars are to be mentioned 
in the prescribed form, the nature and value of the ll;OOds sold, the par· 
ties to whom they are sold .. and to which authority the form is to be 
furnished. But the phrase "in the prescribed manner" in s. 8(4) does not 
take in the time-element. In other words, the section doe's not authorise 
the rule-making authority to prescribe 'a time-limit within which the de-
claration is to be filed by the registered dealer. This view is supported 
by the language of s. 13 ( 4 )(g) of the Act which states that the State 
Government may make rules for "the time within which, the manner in 
which and the authorities to whom any change in the ownership of any 
business or in the name, place or nature of any business earned on by 
any d,:aler shall be furnished." This makes it clear that the Legislature 
was conscious of the fact that the expression "in the manner" would do-
note only the mode in which an act was to be done, and if any timo-
limit was to· be prescribed for the doin11 of the act, specific w.ords such 
as "th'> time within which" were also necessary to be put in the statute. 
Therefore the assessee was not bound to furnish declarations in 
Form 
'C' be.fore the prescribed time in the present case. In the absence of 
any such time-hmit it was the duty of the assessee to furnish the declara-
tions in Form 'C' within a reasonable time and in the present case it is 
the admitted position that the assessee did furnish the declarations befono 
the order of assessment was made. (522 F-523 A; 524 D-EJ 
Acrama11 v. Herniman 117 E.R. 1164, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 404 of 
1966. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 29, 1963 of the Kerala High Court in 0.P. No. 2165 
H 
of 1962. 
B. R. L. Iyengar and M, R. Krishna Pillai, for the appellants. 
S,T.O. v. ABRAHAM (Ramaswaml, /.) 
519 
A 
The respondent did not appear. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. Tiris appeal is brought, by special leave, from 
the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated November 29, 
1963 in Writ Petition, O.P. No. 2165 of 1962. 
The respondent (hereinafter called tlie 'assessee') was a dealer 
in Cocoanut oil business having inter-State sales. 
For the year 
1959-60 the assessee was assessed to sales-tax under s. 8 of the 
Central Sales Tax Act (Act 74 of 1956), hereinafter called the 
'Act'. 
Out of a total turnover of Rs. 2,30,990 and odd determin-
ed by the Sales Tax Officer, only a sum of Rs. 1,89,734 and odd 
c 
was supported by proper declaration Form 'C'. 
Tax was there· 
fore imposed by the Sales Tax Officer at the rate of 1 % on the 
turnover of Rs. 1,93,346 and at 7% on the balance, namely 
Rs. 37,645. 
The assessee did not file the declaration forms on or 
before the prescribed date, i.e., February 16, 1961 but he actually 
filed the declaration forms on March 8, 1961 before the order of 
D 
assessment was made, the delay being explained as due to late 
receipt of the declaration fonns from the purchaser in Madras. 
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Com-
missioner but the appeal was dismissed. 
The assessee took the 
matter in revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales-tax 
but the revision petition was dismissed. 
Thereafter, the assessee 
moved the Kerala High Court for grant of a writ under Art. 226 
E 
of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Sales Tax 
Officer dated June 13, 1

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