TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (5) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent No. 1, on the 30th September, 1971, under section 11(1) of the said Act. In computing the taxable turnover the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the claim made by the petitioner under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act on the basis of the declaration form supplied by the purchasers, the registered dealers. The petitioner claimed exemption of a total amount of Rs. 25,89,286.18, but the Commercial Tax Officer disallowed Rs. 1,72,905.62 with respect to sales to M/s. Laxmi Iron & Steel Co., M/s. Bansal Iron & Steel Engineering, and M/s. Krishna Commercial Engineering on the grounds that purchasing dealers' registration certificates were cancelled on 28th April, 1969, 9th November, 1970, 12th April, 1971, and 25th November, 1970, respectivel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the registration certificates were cancelled on 25th November, 1970, 20th July, 1972, and 28th September, 1972. The petitioner claimed deduction for Rs. 12,97,029.29. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,25,671.56. The Commercial Tax Officer was of further opinion that the payment received was partly in cash and partly by cheque. In the declaration forms, number of challans and dates were not mentioned. No appeal was preferred against the said order of assessment. With respect to the assessment for four quarters ending 31st December, 1969, the petitioner duly filed returns. The petitioner apprehended that respondent No. 1 will reject the claim made by the petitioner under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and thereby a huge d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aborty on a Bench decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Dutta v. Board of Revenue[1967] 20 S.T.C. 528. In that case it has been held by Banerjee, J., sitting with K.L. Roy, J., that the provisions of section 5(2)(a)(ii), proviso, read with rule 27A and the prescribed form should be treated as directory, which need be substantially complied with. It has also been further held that the subsequent cancellation of registration certificate does not invalidate the declaration form given in respect of a purchase prior to such cancellation. My attention was also drawn to the case of Durga Sree Stores v. Board of Revenue[1964] 15 S.T.C. 186., wherein it is held that where the certificate of registration is issued to a registered dealer it conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Works (P.) Ltd.'s case[1971] 27 S.T.C. 394., the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer was cancelled on 7th January, 1957, but the purchaser issued the supporting declaration form up to 23rd February, 1957. The declaration forms which were produced in respect of sales did not indicate the purpose for which the purchases were being made. At page 398 of the Reports, S.P. Mitra, J. (as he then was), observed that when declaration forms of this nature are issued by a dealer whose registration admittedly has been cancelled, the omission to mention the purposes of purchase cannot be treated lightly or considered negligible, particularly in the context of the transactions prior to cancellation which have already been considered by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtificate of registration, he is entitled to purchase goods of the classes mentioned in section 8(3)(b) for more purposes than one; and that when the purchasing dealer furnishes certificate in form C without any of the four alternatives, it is a representation that the goods purchased are intended to be used for all or any of the purposes and the certificate complies with the requirements of the Act and the Rules. Considering the decisions referred hereinabove, in my view, when a dealer claims exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act by filing declaration form in support of his claim, he has discharged his onus under rule 27A. The onus of proving genuineness of the transaction is shifted to the Commercial Tax Officer. There is no o....