TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court ruling on declaration form defects: Partial rejections upheld, others rejected, mixed outcome on question 10.</h1> The court ruled against rejecting declaration forms in questions 1-5, 8, and 9, finding defects not substantial. However, in questions 6, 7, and 11, where ... - Issues Involved:1. Defects in declaration forms justifying disallowance of deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. Admissible evidence and vital defects in declaration forms justifying disallowance of deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Defects in Declaration Forms Justifying Disallowance of DeductionsQuestion No. 1:The defect in the declaration form furnished by Messrs. Horie Stores was the omission of the date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. The court held that this omission did not make the purchasing dealer unidentifiable and was not a vital defect. Thus, the declaration should not have been rejected.Question No. 2:The defects in the declarations supplied by Asoka Stores included a misspelling of the purchasing dealer's name and an incorrect date of the registration certificate. The court found these errors unsubstantial as they did not make the purchasing dealer unidentifiable. Therefore, the forms should not have been rejected.Question No. 3:The defect in the declaration form supplied by Messrs. Balai Chand Bhuia was the omission of the date of the registration certificate. The court deemed this omission not vital, and thus, the form should not have been rejected.Question No. 4:The defects in the declaration form supplied by Messrs. Debi Prosad Basudeo included non-dating of the form, omission to cast totals of transactions, and transactions close to the surrender of the registration certificate. The court found these defects overemphasized and not substantial enough to invalidate the form.Question No. 5:The defects in the declaration forms supplied by Messrs. Sen Dutta & Co. included transactions shortly before the cancellation of the registration certificate and failure to total up transactions. The court held these defects unsubstantial and found the rejection of the forms unjustified.Issue 2: Admissible Evidence and Vital Defects Justifying DisallowanceQuestion No. 6:The declaration forms supplied by Biswanath Choudhury were rejected based on an Inspector's report indicating the purchasing dealer had closed his business before the transactions took place. The court found this to be admissible evidence and justified the rejection.Question No. 7:The declaration form supplied by Lakhi Stores was rejected based on an Inspector's report showing the purchasing dealer had suspended business before the transactions. The court found this to be valid evidence and justified the rejection.Question No. 8:The declaration form supplied by Rabindra & Co. was rejected due to sales after the closure of business and differences in signatures. The court found no evidence of business closure in January 1954 and deemed the signature differences unsubstantial, thus rejecting the form was unjustified.Question No. 9:The declaration forms supplied by G.S. Syndicate were rejected due to omission of the registration certificate date, differences in signatures, and non-dating of signatures. The court found these defects unsubstantial and irrelevant, thus the rejection was unjustified.Question No. 10:One declaration form supplied by Diana Distributors was rejected due to a date discrepancy, which the court found valid. The other form was rejected due to differences in signatures, which the court found unjustified as the Board acted like a handwriting expert without sufficient evidence.Question No. 11:The declaration form supplied by Basudev Bhandar was rejected due to the purpose of purchase not being stated, no date below the signature, and misuse of the form. The court found the misuse of the form to be substantial evidence justifying the rejection.Conclusion:The court answered questions Nos. 1 to 5, 8, and 9 in the negative, indicating that the defects in the declaration forms did not justify their rejection. Questions Nos. 6, 7, and 11 were answered in the affirmative, indicating that there was admissible evidence justifying the rejection of the forms. Question No. 10 was answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative, depending on the specific defects in the forms. No orders as to costs were made due to divided success.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
