TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 1053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Petitioner, a dealer registered under the Act, claimed deduction in respect of sales stated to have been made to registered dealers. Fifty four declaration forms in form S.T. I were furnished in support of the claim. Assessing officer rejected the claim on the ground that the purchasing dealers who had issued those forms had indicated different figures in respect of the transactions covered by the forms. On the aforesaid ground, the assessment for the year 1983-84 was completed raising extra demand of Rs. 10,60,185 additionally which is required to be dealt with under section 50 of the Act. Petitioner submitted its reply and took a stand that the claim was in order. A prayer was made to summon the concerned purchasing dealers under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for reselling them or for the purpose of using them as packing material for the goods which are manufactured or are sold. Rule 8 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") deals with authority from whom the declaration forms may be obtained, and use, custody and maintenance of record of such forms and the matters incidental thereto. Rule 7 stipulates conditions subject to which a dealer may claim deduction on his turnover from sales to registered dealers. As the controversy is non-mistakably linked with section 4(2)(a), rules 7 and 8 it is necessary to reproduce them: "Section 4(2)(a)(v): For the purposes of this Act, 'taxable turnover' means that part of a dealer's turnover during the prescribed per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced has to be in terms of form S.T. 1. The said form consists of three parts, i.e., original, duplicate and counterfoil. Various particulars have to be filled in while using the form. Petitioner's stand is that if there was any discrepancy, it should have been granted an opportunity to reconcile the figures with those of the purchasing dealer and for that purpose a prayer was made under section 42 of the Act which deals with the powers of the Commissioner and other authorities to take evidence on oath. The Revenue authorities seem to have proceeded on the basis that when the purchasing dealer have furnished the details on the basis of counterfoils retained by them there was no necessity for further opportunity being granted to reconcile t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entries have been made have to be produced by the Revenue for the purpose of cross-verification and/or cross-examination if a demand is made by the assessee for the said purpose. This position was succinctly stated by the apex Court in State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff [1977] 39 STC 478. It has to be noted that in such cases, the person in whose books the entries appear stands in the position of a witness for the Revenue when the entries in his books of accounts are sought to be utilised for drawing adverse inference. Different figures as appearing in the purchasing dealers' books of account are essentially relatable to materials providing foundation for the view of assessing officer. If he proposes to utilise the materials collected, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls, which are used against the affected person. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Hendwoath Board of Works 1963 (143) ER 414, the principle was thus stated: "Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence." "Adam says God, "where art thai" "has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou should not eat". Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. A more recent statement of the law in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation [1971] 2 All ER 1278 is that "the right of a man to be heard in his own defence is the most elementary protection". This position was highlighted in Eric Alvares v. Collector, Sundargarh 1996 (1) OLR 25, and Banamali Jena (a....