1958 (11) TMI 21 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Form VIII Mandatory for Rebate Claims: Court Stresses Compliance with Rule 9

The State of Madras Versus Messrs Kasam Ayub

The State of Madras Versus Messrs Kasam Ayub - [1959] 10 STC 190 (AP) Issues: Interpretation of section 7 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act in relation to claiming rebate for sales of groundnut oil exported outside the State of Madras.The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of section 7 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and rule 9 of the Rules. The respondent, a dealer in groundnuts and groundnut oil, claimed exemption for sales of oils exported outside the State of Madras. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer did not allow the rebate as the required application in Form VIII was not submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal admitted claims for rebate based on invoices produced by the assessee. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in not requiring the prescribed form for claiming rebate. Section 7 allows a rebate for sales of specified articles delivered outside the state, subject to prescribed conditions. Rule 9 mandates submission of an application in Form VIII within three months of delivery. The absence of Form VIII in this case raised the question of whether the letter from the assessee fulfilled the requirements of section 7 and rule 9.The Court emphasized that compliance with the prescribed procedure in rule 9 is essential to claim rebate under section 7. The language of rule 9 is mandatory, requiring submission of Form VIII for rebate application. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of the prescribed form was a mere technicality, highlighting that the assessing authority must verify the application's correctness before granting a rebate. Referring to a previous case, the Court held that strict compliance with rule 9 is necessary to claim the rebate, similar to the requirement in the previous case's rule 18(3). The judgment concluded that the Tribunal's order was incorrect, emphasizing that adherence to the prescribed procedure is crucial for claiming rebates under the General Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed with costs, and the advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 200.