TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (3) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that they are second sales falling under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They produced a certificate in form E-1 from the selling dealer of Calcutta. But this certificate in E-1 form covered a period of over five months and more than one transaction. The assessing officer disallowed this claim on the ground that the E-1 form certificate produced was not in accordance with rule 9-D of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, as it covered more than one transaction of sale. This view was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who had also stated that the E-1 certificate not only covered more than one transaction, but also sale to more than one purchaser. A further appeal to the Tribunal was also unsuccessful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Section 13 of the Act confers a rulemaking power on the Central Government and, in particular, section 13(1)(d) enabled the Central Government to prescribe the form and the particulars to be contained in any declaration or certificate to be given under the Act. In exercise of this power, the Central Government have made rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Dealing with section 6(2), rule 12(4) prescribed that the certificate referred to in that subsection shall be in form E-1 or form E-11, as the case may be. Section 13(3) and (4) also enable the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Purporting to act under this power, the Government of Tamil Nadu had prescribed rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad not imposed any condition that the declaration or certificate should not cover more than one transaction but rule 10 of the Madras Rules prescribed that such declarations or certificates in form C or D, as the case may be, shall not cover more than one transaction in order to get the concessional rate of taxation under section 8(1). In the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee, who was a dealer in Madras State sold the goods coming within the description of section 8(3) of the Act, to a registered dealer in Punjab State and produced declaration in form C, but the declaration covered more than one transaction of sale. The assessing officer and the appellate authorities rejected these forms as not being in accordance with rule 10 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining of the forms, declarations and the certificates and the authority from whom they have to be obtained also clearly indicate that proviso to rule 9-1) could not have been intended to apply to dealers outside the State of Tamil Nadu. In fact, after holding that the conditions prescribed in rule 10 requiring that the declaration in form C should be in respect of each transaction separately are not intended to be applied in the case of outside purchaser, the Supreme Court further observed: "The situation which has arisen in this case could have been avoided, if instead of each State making its rules requiring that no single declaration shall cover more than one transaction, the Central Government in exercise of the power under section ....