TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (4) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the same from the plaintiff. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the Court below in great detail and I do not think it is necessary for me to traverse the grounds over again. The point that arises for consideration is whether in view of the fact that admittedly the respondent did not comply with rule 18(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, and also rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, the respondent would be entitled to the relief he claimed in the suit. The respondent has been a dealer in groundnut oil and cake. In regard to the assessment of such dealers to sales tax, there are certain rules which have to be observed by the assessing authorities. Rule No. 5(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... emphasis in this rule is on the proviso, namely, that the amount for which the oil is sold is to be included in the turnover of the registered manufacturer. The contention of the appellant is that the amount for which the oil is sold is not included in his turnover in order to enable the assessing authority to determine the total net turnover in accordance with rule 5(1)(k). In order to secure that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover by the registered manufacturer, rule 18(3) has been prescribed and it is in the following terms: "Every such manufacturer shall submit so as to reach the registering authority not later than the 25th day of every month, a statement in Form A-9 in respect of the transactions relatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven to the assessee to claim a refund or deduction of an amount equal to the value of the manufactured oil sold by the assessee. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that, if the various provisions in the sub-rules of rule 18 amount to a mere procedure, then certainly it could not be the intention of the Government, or the legislature, that the assessee should be pena- lised for failure to observe the procedure, in that he should lose the entire benefit of a deduction in his total turnover. I find it difficult to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that these are merely rules of procedure and their non-compliance shall not entail any penalty against the assessee who fails to comply with the same. The very....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be noted that the non-compliance of these conditions within the time prescribed or the total omission of com- pliance with sub-rule (3) of rule 18 works a hardship against the assessees. In recognition of this hardship and to mitigate the rigour of it the Government would appear to have inserted a new sub-rule (3A) of rule 18 which gives discretion to the assessing authority to condone delay or even omission in any fit case according to the result of his enquiry. Unfortunately, this amended rule came into existence only on 10th February, 1949, whereas the assessment which is now in question, relates to the year ending with 31st March, 1948, so that it is obvious that this rule, which has not been made to be retrospective in effect, cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specified in the rules before he could really claim the benefit given to him. If it was the intention of the Legislature or the Government for the matter of that, that these rights should be exercised by the assessees irrespective of their doing anything on their part in order that the assessing authorities may be in possession of full parti- culars and details of the transactions which the assessees carry on, cer- tainly nothing could have prevented the legislature to enact the law in that form. But, not having done so, I do not think it is possible for me to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that these substan- tive rights are not affected by what are contained in the rules framed under the rule-making power vested in the....