TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTT Act"), this application for revision stood transferred to this Tribunal in terms of sections 14 and 7 of the RTT Act. 3.. The facts of the case are that the applicant is a dealer within the meaning of the Act who is required to furnish prescribed periodic returns as provided for under section 7(1) of the Act and rule 25 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The return for the third quarter of the assessment year 1987-88 ending on December 31, 1987, which was the return in question, was required to be filed within 30 days, i.e., by January 30, 1988. The applicant claims to have submitted the return in question by post U.P.C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) it was clear that the return had been filed with a delay of 528 days and that the tax for the quarter to which the return in question related was also deposited late on February 4, 1988, after the due date; that the U.P.C. presented before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was neither solid nor unrebuttable proof, that the return in question had been submitted as according to the assessing authority the return in question was not available in the office and that therefore it cannot be said that the U.P.C. showed that the return in question was sent. The Board's decision reported in (1994) 15 RTJS 220 (Baheti Automobiles v. Commercial Taxes Officer) was followed. 6.. Hence the instant application for revision. 7.. We have heard the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be drawn that the cover contained the return; that the presumption raised by the certificate of posting was rebuttable and that on the addressee denying its receipt the presumption stood rebutted; that in the instant case the assessing authority having denied such receipt no presumption could be drawn in favour of the applicants; that it had rightly been held that the return had not been filed by the due date and penalty has been correctly imposed. 10.. The only point for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the return in question can be said to have been validly filed in time as claimed by the applicant and as evidenced by the U.P.C. 11.. In Commercial Taxes Officer, Banswara v. Vijay Cotton Company (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... do so by the assessing authority by notice served in the prescribed manner, shall furnish prescribed returns for the prescribed periods, in the prescribed forms, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time to the assessing authority: Provided that the assessing authority may extend the date for the submission of such returns by any dealer or class of dealers by a period not exceeding fifteen days in the aggregate: Provided further that no return shall be required to be filed by a registered dealer who deals exclusively in exempted/sales tax paid goods and whose turnover in the preceding accounting year does not exceed such limit as may be prescribed. (2) Every such return shall be accompanied by a treasury receipt or receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y or sent by post; (iii) The assessing authority is not bound to take cognizance of a return unaccompanied by a receipt for deposit of tax. 16.. Admittedly the tax for the quarter to which the return in question related was deposited on February 4, 1988. Even if the claim of the applicant that he had submitted the return in question by post U.P.C. on January 25, 1988 to the assessing authority is accepted at face value it could not have been accompanied by the receipt showing the deposit of the full amount of the tax due on the basis of the return as the tax was deposited only on February 4, 1988. Therefore, the return cannot be said to have been filed in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules and even if the return unaccompa....