Central sales tax procedure cannot import State penalty provisions or alter return periods without clear statutory authority.

A registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be compelled, by resort to the Bihar Sales Tax Act and rules, to file monthly returns or be assessed for a broken period, because the statutory scheme for Central sales tax returns remained governed by the Central Act and the 1957 Bihar Rules. The proviso to section 14(1) of the Bihar Act was held to regulate the time for filing prescribed returns, not to alter the return period itself, so the monthly-return requirement and broken-period assessment were without jurisdiction. Penalties under sections 14(4) and 20(4) of the Bihar Act were also inapplicable to Central sales tax liability, as section 9(2) imported procedure, not substantive penal liability. The assessment order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be required, by applying the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Bihar rules, to file monthly returns and be assessed for a broken period instead of the full year. (ii) Whether penalties for late submission of returns and late payment of tax under sections 14(4) and 20(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be imposed in respect of liability arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be required, by applying the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Bihar rules, to file monthly returns and be assessed for a broken period instead of the full year.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Central Act and the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957 provided for quarterly and annual returns by a registered dealer, and rule 8(1) specifically regulated the manner and time of filing such returns. The proviso to section 14(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held not to have been referentially incorporated so as to empower the sales tax authorities to alter the period for which returns were to be filed. The provision was construed as relating to the time for filing prescribed returns, not to authorise a change in the return period itself.

Conclusion: The requirement to file monthly returns and the assessment for a broken period were without jurisdiction and invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties for late submission of returns and late payment of tax under sections 14(4) and 20(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be imposed in respect of liability arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was held to import only the State procedure for assessment, collection and enforcement of tax payable under the Central Act, and not the State's substantive penal liability where the Central Act itself contained no corresponding provision. Penal liability was treated as substantive rather than merely procedural. In the absence of a clear Central Act provision adopting the Bihar penalties, sections 14(4) and 20(4) could not be invoked for defaults relating to Central sales tax returns and payment.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under sections 14(4) and 20(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 were unauthorised and illegal.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed, and the authorities were left free to make a fresh assessment for the full statutory period in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 incorporates the State's machinery provisions for assessment and recovery, but does not, without clear words, import substantive State penal provisions to create liability for penalties not provided under the Central Act.

---