TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (8) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduce at the time of assessment the declarations in form 'aa' prescribed by the same notifications? (b) Whether the exemption under para 2 of the Government notification referred to in the first question can be granted to a dealer if he does not strictly comply with the requirements of the notification issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Bharat, under Notification No. 1 dated 14th October, 1950, and whether such exemption can be granted if the dealer adduces some other kind of evidence to prove that he has complied with the provisions of para 2 of the Government notification referred to above. (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Sales Tax was right in refusing to consider the declarations in form 'aa' that were filed before him during the course of revision proceedings? " 2.. The material facts as found by the Commissioner, which were for the most part not in dispute, are fully disclosed in the reference. In order to appreciate the questions of law referred to us, we may shortly state some of those facts. Under section 4(3) of the Act, it was competent to the State Government to exempt by a notification, any goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeared before him and stated that the applicant-dealer had not obtained declarations in form 'aa' at the time of selling the goods. He further stated that certain declarations have been obtained and some more remained to be obtained. The assessment proceedings continued on some more dates, namely, 25th August, 1954, 27th August, 1954, 30th August, 1954, and ultimately the case was closed for orders on 31st August, 1954. The assessing authority passed the assessment order on 29th November, 1954. In this order, he came to the conclusion that the dealer had not obtained declarations in form 'aa' from the purchasing registered dealers and that he also did not f urnish any of the declarations in form 'aa' before him. Therefore, he held that the dealer was liable to pay tax on the sales of cloth made to the registered dealers. The claim for a deduction of Rs. 27,84,979-2-9 under para 2 of the Government notification was thus rejected." The declarations in form A, which were produced before the Sales Tax Officer on 31st August, 1954, were rejected by that officer before he passed the order of assessment on 29th November, 1954. Being aggrieved, the assessee moved the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purposes of the Act, and rule 27(2) is designed to ensure that a buying dealer's certificate of registration does, in fact, mention that the goods are intended for resale by him, and for that purpose it has chosen one exclusive method of proving the fact before a Sales Tax Officer. He further urges that no other method of proving that fact is permissible. Rule 27(2) is mandatory and if there is breach of it the selling dealer is not entitled to deduction. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that rule 27(2) is directory. He points out that the word 'shall' should be read as 'may' in the context. He further says that supposing the selling dealer brought the original certificate of registration of a buying dealer and produced it before the Sales Tax Officer, according to the appellant, this would not be enough, but this could never have been intended. In our opinion, rule 27(2) must be reconciled with the section and the rule can be reconciled by treating it as directory. But the rule must be substantially complied with in every case. It is for the Sales Tax Officer to be satisfied that, in fact, the certificate of registration of the buying dealer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stified in refusing to consider the declarations in form A which had been produced in the course of revision proceedings. The point appears to have been raised on the assumption that in view of the requirements of the rules made under section 52 of the Act, production of form A along with the return was obligatory for the purpose of claiming exemption. We have shown that this was not so. When that aspect of the matter is out of the way, the precise question is whether evidence in proof of any fact could be accepted at a late stage if produced before the assessing authority, or before the appellate authority or before the revising authority. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sardar House[1969] 23 S.T.C. 276; [1969] J.L.J. 60. is an authority of this court for the view that such certificates can be admitted in appeal. National Traders (India) v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax[1968] 22 S.T.C. 86. is another authority of this court for the view that such certificates can be accepted in revision. That is also the view of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Cheria Abdulla and Co.[1965] 16 S.T.C. 875 (S.C.). and Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi[1968] 21 S.T.C. 383 (S.C.). In the....