Concessional sales tax liability under Form XII-A shifts to the purchasing dealer after the amended rule, not the seller.

Rule 20-A(1)(v) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, as amended, shifted liability for a Form XII-A declaration furnished on or after 1 January 1974 in respect of goods not covered by the purchaser's registration certificate away from the selling registered dealer. In that situation, the selling dealer was not liable for the difference between the full rate and the concessional rate of tax; instead, the purchasing dealer bore the prescribed composition fee and the goods could be specified in the registration certificate. On that construction, reassessment and revisional orders demanding differential tax from the seller were inconsistent with the rule and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Rule 20-A(1)(v) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the selling registered dealer could be fastened with liability for the difference between the full rate of tax and the concessional rate of tax when the purchasing dealer had furnished Form XII-A after 1st January, 1974, and whether the reassessment orders raising such demand were sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 20-A(1)(v), as amended, expressly provided that where a purchasing registered dealer furnished a declaration in Form XII-A on or after 1st January, 1974 in respect of goods not specified in his registration certificate, the selling registered dealer would not be liable to pay the difference between the full rate and the concessional rate of tax. The rule instead placed liability on the purchasing registered dealer to pay a composition fee of rupees one hundred and authorised specification of the goods in his registration certificate. The declaration in the present case was admittedly in Form XII-A and was of a date after 1st January, 1974. On the language of the rule itself, the dealer who sold the goods could not be treated as liable for the differential tax. The impugned orders proceeded on a contrary basis and were therefore inconsistent with the amended rule.

Conclusion: The selling dealer was not liable for the differential tax, and the reassessment and revisional orders could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the impugned demands were quashed, with consequential refund relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amended taxing rule expressly shifts liability for misuse of Form XII-A declarations from the selling dealer to the purchasing dealer, the selling dealer cannot be made to pay the difference between the full rate and the concessional rate of tax.

---