STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTION LTD. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 28-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. 
A 
r 
l'. 
; 
HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT 
PRODUCTION LTD. ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 28, 1994 
B 
I 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
-,\ 
Cemral Sales Tax Act, 1957/Central Sales Tax ( Registratio11 and Tum-
over) Rules, 1957: 
c 
Ss.8( I), 8(4), Proviso/r .. 12(7) Proviso-Sale of goods to Govemment 
or to registered deale~Sa/es Tax on-Declaration in Jann 
1C' to avail benefii 
under s.8(1 )-Power of appellate auth01ity to receive declaration fonns in 
appeal--He/d1 1nere use of words "the first assessing autho1ity" does not niean 
that appellate autho1ity does not have power to receive Jann 'C' in ap-
D 
peal-Power to be exercised only where sufficient cause is shown by dealer 
for not fili11g the fonns upto the time of assessment before first assessing 
authority. 
Under sub-section (1) of s.8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, sales tax 
at a lesser rate of 4% was required to be paid in case of sale of any goods to E 
the Government or sale of goods prescribed in s.8(3) of the Act to any 
registered dealer. Sub- section (4) of s.8 provided that the provisions of s. 
8(1) would not apply to any sale unles. the dealer selling the goods fur-
nished to the prescribed authority a declaration duly signed by the 
authorised officer of the Government or the dealer to whon1 the goods w~re 
~ 
sold. By Amendment Act 61 of 1972, a proviso each was added to sub-section F 
(4) of Section 8 of the Act and to sub- rule (i) of Rule 12 of the Central Sales 
Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rule 1957, inter a/ia, to the effect that the 
declaration in Form-C should be furnished to the prescribed authority (who 
was also the assessing authority) upto the time of assessn1ent by the first 
assessing authority or upto such tinie as may be allowed by that authority. 
G 
In the appeals tiled by the revenue against the judgments of the High 
Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, it was contended by the 
Revenue before this Court that since the proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 
specifically required that Form-C should be furnished "up to the time of 
assessment by the first assessing authority" and also vested the power to H 
785 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l994J 3 S.C.R. 
A 
extend the time in the assessing authority, the appellate authority had no 
power to receive Form-C in appeal and grant relief; and that in vie"· of 
sub-section ( 4) of Section 8 and sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 providing for a 
benefit i.e., partial exemption from tax liability, the dealer desiring to avail 
the benefit should comply with the relevant provisions strictly and fully. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
c 
HELD : 1.1. Mere use of the words "the first assessing authority" in 
sub-rule (7) of Rule.12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turn-
over) Rules, 1957 cannot and does not mean, in the context and scheme of 
the enactments concerned that the appellate authorities did not have the 
power to receive Forn1-C in appeal. This po"'er can of course be exercised 
only where sufficient cause is shown by the dealer for not filing the forms 
upto the time of assessment before the first assessing authority. 
(798-H, 799-A] 
D 
1.2. Receipt of declaration forms mentioned under R.12(7), in ap-
peal cannot be a matter of course; it should be allowed only where 
sufficient cause is established by the dealer for not producing them before 
the first assessing authority as contemplated by Rule 12(7). The require-
ment of the said sub-rule cannot be excluded from consideration by the 
appellate court while judging the sufficiency of the cause shown. It must 
E 
be remembered that that is the primary obligation of the dealer and his 
failure to abide by it must be properly explained. If a dealer obtains 
further time from the first assessing authority and yet fails to produce 
the forms before him, it is obvious that the appellate authority would 
adopt a stiffer standard in judging the sufficient cause shown by the 
dealer for not producing them earlier. (799-A-C] 
F 
C.!.T v . . Macmilan, 33 I.T.R. 182, relied on. 
Sratc of Tamil Nad11 v. Amlnrnnigan & Co., 51 S.T.C. 381 and 
Rajeshwmi, Stone Polishers v. State of A.P., 52 S.T.C. 268, approved. 
G 
Nannndas Manordass v. Conunissioner of Inconie Tax, 31 I.T.R. 381 
909, referred to. 
Sales Tax Officer v. Abraham, 20 S.T.C. 367, cited. 
The State of Tamil Nadu v. Chellaram Garments (P) Ltd., 44 S.T.C. 
H 239; Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbator Division, Coim-
STATE 

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