TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 clarifies authority to accept declaration forms impacts tax assessment</h1> <h3>Mohatta Brothers Versus Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal</h3> The court determined that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were authorized to accept and consider the declaration forms ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner was empowered to accept and consider the declaration form filed by the assessee along with the petition of appeal.2. If the answer to the first question is negative, whether the merits of the case were affected by the non-consideration of the declaration forms by the Assistant Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Empowerment to Accept and Consider Declaration FormsThe primary issue revolves around whether the Assistant Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner had the authority to accept and consider the declaration forms filed by the assessee along with the petition of appeal. Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, stipulates that the declaration in form C must be furnished to the prescribed authority up to the time of assessment by the first assessing authority. However, the proviso allows for submission within a further time if the prescribed authority is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay.The case involved the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for four quarters ending with Kartick Badi 15, 2016 S.Y. The Commercial Tax Officer assessed the dealer ex parte due to non-submission of returns, resulting in a taxable turnover of Rs. 7,20,000 and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000. The dealer's appeal to the Assistant Commissioner led to a reduction in taxable turnover but no change in the penalty. Subsequent appeals to the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were unsuccessful.The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, noted that the declaration forms were indeed filed with the petition of appeal and were present in the appeal file of the Assistant Commissioner. However, he held that the law did not permit acceptance of such forms at a stage later than at the time of assessment, as required under rule 4(4) of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958. This rule mandates that the selling dealer must produce the declaration forms at the time of assessment.The court referred to section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which requires the dealer to furnish the declaration to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner. The Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam v. K.I. Abraham held that the phrase 'in the prescribed manner' did not include a time element, thereby invalidating rules that specified a strict time limit for submission of declaration forms.The court concluded that the time of assessment must include all stages of assessment, including appeals and revisions. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were indeed empowered to accept the declaration forms.Issue 2: Impact on Merits of the CaseGiven the negative answer to the first question, the second issue concerns whether the merits of the case were affected by the non-consideration of the declaration forms. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, had stated that the merits were not affected because the forms were not considered.However, the court disagreed, stating that the assessment of Central sales tax involves the proper application of rates and taxes, which necessitates the examination of declaration forms as per section 8 of the Act. The court emphasized that the appellate authority must consider these forms to determine the correct rate of tax. The failure to consider the declaration forms indeed affected the merits of the case.Conclusion:Both questions were answered in the negative. The Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were empowered to accept and consider the declaration forms, and their failure to do so affected the merits of the case. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
