AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of drugs and pharmaceuticals products under two different divisions, viz., "manufacturing division" and "trading division". In manufacturing division the assessee-company carries on the business of manufacturing as well as trading of drugs and pharmaceuticals products while in the trading division it carries on the business of trading of drugs and pharmaceuticals products only. The registered place of business of both the divisions is same. For the purpose of commercial tax both the divisions are separate assessees and registered as separate dealers. The manufacturing division of the assessee is registered under TIN No. 23060202129 while the trading division of the assessee is registered under TIN No. 23330200865. During the financial year starting from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, both the divisions of the assessee-company carried out some inter-State sale of pharmaceuticals products to a common purchaser who issued declaration in C form to the assessee-company without mentioning the name of the concerned division. The sale transactions made by the manufacturing division and the trading division of the assessee-compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Division and there is no possibility of misuse of these declarations". The assessee-company for its trading division preferred a revision of order dated July 5, 2007 (annexure P/4) before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, M. P., Indore, under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 62(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and submitted original C form for a turnover of Rs. 1,40,770 and "duplicate C form for a turnover of Rs. 27,48,403". The revisional authority allowed the revision application of the trading division of the assessee partially and further reduced the taxable turnover of the assessee-company by a sum of Rs. 1,40,770 for which "original" C form were submitted and granted a tax relief of 10 per cent. of the exempted turnover. However, the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated January 2, 2008 (annexure P/1) rejected the request of the assessee to considering duplicate C forms for the remaining amount of taxable turnover of Rs. 27,48,403. It is this part of the order by which the assessee aggrieved and filed this present petition. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the requirement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under rule 8(2) requires furnishing of the portion marked "original" of the C form as received by the selling dealer to the assessing authority for the purpose of claiming exemption under sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Act while under the Central Act and the Rules framed thereunder there is no requirement for furnishing of the "original" C form with the assessing authority. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the revisional authority to the effect that the "originals" of C form are available with the Department in the files of the manufacturing division of the assessee-company for its assessment. Thus, the view taken by the Revenue is perverse and bad in law. Sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 provides that in case the declaration in C form is lost either by the purchasing dealer or by the selling dealer, the purchasing dealer or the selling dealers as the case may be, may furnish an indemnity bond to the notified authority of his State to enable the concerned assessing authority to recognize and accept existence of the "original" C form. It is submitted that the scheme of the Act under sub-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, therefore, follow that the declaration in C form was furnished, but instead of submitting that part of the form which contained the word 'original' and which was meant for being filed before the assessing authority, another part of the form, marked 'duplicate', was filed. Section 8(4) or rule 12(1) does not say which part of the form was required to be filed before the assessing authority. It is the form itself, which by use of the words 'original', 'duplicate' and 'counterfoil', gives an indication as to which part of the form is required to be filed before the assessing authority. In the light of these facts and the provisions of law, we are of the view that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 8(4) of the Central Act and those of rule 12(1) of the Central Rules, so as to entitle the assessee to get the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the Central Act. Accordingly, the first two questions of law referred to us must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department." In the case in hand the assessee had filed the original part of the declaration in C form in assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ages 340, 341, 343, 345 and 346 in 139 STC): "12. We have carefully considered the elaborate submissions made by the learned senior counsel. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in respect of the inter-State sales transactions, the appellant had collected 279 original C forms and duplicates and that the appellant had separated original C forms for submitting the same to the assessing officer and kept the duplicate separately. The entire file containing the original had thereafter been misplaced and, therefore, the appellant could file only the duplicate. It is submitted that under rule 12(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 in case of loss of original C forms, if he complies with the above rule, the appellant will be eligible for the concessional rate of sales tax. It is stated that when the appellant had complied with the said rule, there is no reason for denial of the concessional rate. The impugned order passed by the respondent was, therefore, erroneous and it is set aside restoring the order of the assessing authority. In our opinion, the said contention is not tenable and has no force. We have already extracted rule 6(b)(ii) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts-original, duplicate and counter foil and all the three parts are identical in terms of them and form part of form C and that section 8(4) or rule 12(1) does not say which part of the form is required to be filed before the assessing authority. In that case, the dealer filed the duplicate part of form C instead of the original. The High Court held that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and those of rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 so as to entitle the dealer to get the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The High Court as a result of their discussion held that the filing of original parts of declaration in C form is not mandatory but directory under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with rules thereunder and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax as if it had filed the original parts of the declaration in C form as it had filed the original parts in Maharashtra. The assessing authority which was also sought to be summoned by an application for their production an....