TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (3) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Steel Company Ltd. in Bihar. One of the declarations was given on 18th March, 1960, and this declaration was filed along with the return and was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer. The subject-matter of this declaration is no longer in controversy. Two other declarations were filed on 13th August, 1960, and 26th March, 1963, but they were not attached to the returns. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the declaration dated 26th March, 1963. The only declaration which is in controversy is the declaration dated 13th August, 1960, in respect of a gross turnover of Rs. 4,73,242.31. If this declaration is accepted as valid, then the dealer is entitled to be taxed at the concessional rate of 1 per cent. under section 8(1)(b) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eated to form a single transaction of sale requiring only one declaration? (2) Whether rejection of the declaration form on the ground that it was not filed along with the return proper and legal?" That is how the reference has come before us. As the dealer wanted to attack both the aforesaid rules as being ultra vires, the writ application was filed. The Tribunal being a creature of the statute had no power to declare the rules ultra vires and the High Court under section 24(1) of the Act has no powers higher than those of the Tribunal. 2.. The question for consideration in the reference as well as in the writ application is whether these two rules are ultra vires and if so whether the dealer is entitled to relief. 3.. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viding for the form in which and the particulars to be contained in any declaration or certificate to be given under the Act. Section 13(3) prescribes that the State Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made under sub-section (1) to carry out the purpose of the Act. There being a specific provision in section 13(1)(d) that it is the Central Government which would make the rules providing for the form in which and the particulars to be contained in any declaration or certificate, to be given under the Act, any rule framed by the State Government contrary to such direction would be in contravention of section 13(1)(d) and as such the proviso is ultra vires section 13(1)(d) read with section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner as to the quality and quantity of the various kinds of goods required by them. The petitioner offered quotations on 30th October, 1959, and the same was accepted by Tata Iron & Steel Co. on 7th January, 1960. After acceptance, the petitioner started making delivery of goods from time to time, prior to the issue of purchase order. The impugned declaration was signed on 13th August, 1960. The learned Tribunal appears to be of the view that as the delivery was not made after the issue of purchase orders, the impugned declaration signed subsequent to the purchase order cannot be taken advantage of by the dealer, to avail of the concessional rate of tax. Though no question of law was referred to this court arising out of this point, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her in the Act or in the Rules that unless deliveries are made subsequent to the purchase order, the declaration cannot be utilised for claiming relief at concessional rate. Reference may be made in this connection to Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore v. Needle Industries India (Private) Ltd.[1964] 15 S.T.C. 809. 9.. We would, now, sum up our conclusions thus: (1) The purchase order which was issued on 25th June, 1960, was in respect of various sales effected in the relevant quarter. (2) Rule 12(10) of the Rules, in so far as it insists on attaching the declaration to the return furnished by the dealer, is ultra vires the Act. (3) The impugned proviso to rule 6(a)(ii), as it stood during the relevant period, i....