1967 (6) TMI 35 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Sets Aside Board's Order, Directs Fresh Disposal: Officer Must Condone Delays

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Board's order and directing a fresh disposal of the suo motu revision in line with the judgment. The ... - Issues:1. Disallowance of rebate claimed by the assessee due to delayed submission of returns.2. Disagreement over the requirement of an application for condonation of delay under sub-rule (3) of rule 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, a dealer in groundnut oil, claimed a rebate for a specific turnover under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for a particular year. The assessing authority disallowed the rebate citing delayed submission of returns for certain months, despite the tax being paid within the prescribed time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner to apply for condonation of the delay to the Commercial Tax Officer, who could then grant the rebate. However, the Board of Revenue, in a suo motu revision, reversed this decision due to the petitioner's failure to appear for a hearing and the absence of an application for excusing the delay.2. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of sub-rule (3) of rule 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. The sub-rule allows the Commercial Tax Officer to condone delays in submission of certain forms, including Form A-9, under specific conditions, without explicitly stating a requirement for a formal application. The Court emphasized that the discretion granted to the officer must be exercised as per the conditions outlined in the sub-rule, without necessitating a separate application from the assessee. The Court held that the officer could only refuse to condone a delay if there was a mala fide intention or if the assessee had not maintained accurate records as prescribed. Therefore, the Board's decision to require an application for condonation of delay was deemed erroneous by the Court.In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Board's order and directing a fresh disposal of the suo motu revision in line with the judgment. The Court clarified that the Commercial Tax Officer must condone delays as per the conditions specified in the rule, without imposing an additional requirement for an application from the assessee.