Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue was right in remanding the case to the Commissioner for giving the dealer an opportunity to rectify the defect in the C form.
Analysis: The C form had been produced before the assessing authority and had been accepted, though it was defective because the date of issue was omitted. The defect was noticed only later in suo motu revision. The Court distinguished cases where the declaration form was never produced at the assessment stage and held that those authorities did not govern a case where the form had already been filed and accepted, with the defect being a clerical omission. The Court also relied on the later rule that a defective declaration or certificate should not be rejected without giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to supply omissions or remove defects.
Conclusion: The Board was right in directing that the dealer be given an opportunity to rectify the defect, and the answer to the reference was in the affirmative.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory declaration or certificate has been filed before assessment and accepted by the assessing authority, a clerical defect in the form cannot be rejected without giving a reasonable opportunity to cure the omission, especially where the governing rules contemplate such opportunity before invalidation.