Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax
1991 Latest Caselaw 22 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 10th August, 1989 where by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and did not take on record the Sti forms which were sought to be submitted.

(3) In respect of assessment year 1982-83, the petitioner claimed that sales had been made by it to registered dealers against Sti forms. The assessment was completed in 1987 but the Sti forms were not produced. The petitioner then filed a revision petition challenging the amount of tax of Rs. 3,83,934.00 which was levied. The petitioner sought an opportunity to produce the St I forms but by the impugned order it was held that the St I forms are dated 1985 and the assessment was completed in 1987 and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the said forms should not have been produced earlier.

(4) It is contended that though Sti forms had the date of 198 5 but they were physically not handed over to the petitioner because of some dispute which was going on between the petitioner and the purchaser. In proof of the same, the petitioner has produced on record the correspondence exchanged between the petitioner and its purchaser, namely, M/s Kamal Engineering Industries Private Limited which discloses that even after the completion of the assessment, the petitioner had been asking M/s Kamal Engineering to hand over St I forms. The assessment was made on 17th March, 1987 and St I forms were presumably received after the last date of hearing before the Sales Tax Officer.

(5) The State is entitled to the tax which is legitimately due to it. When the Sales Tax Act provides that a deduction can be claimed in respect of sales effected in favor of registered dealers then the deduction should be allowed. The proof in support of claiming the deduction is the production of the St I forms. Even though the St I forms were produced after the assessment had been completed, it will not be fair or just not to allow the legitimate deduction. A citizen should be asked to pay only that amount of tax which is legitimately due from him. .On the facts of this case, the respondents ought to have condoned the delay, if any, and should have taken on record the Sti forms. The discretion has not been properly exercised by the respondents because the correspondence which has been produced before us clearly shows that the petitioner was trying to get St I forms which were not given to it by the purchaser within a reasonable time. Non-production was not due to inaction of the detitioner.

(6) We, therefore, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid order dated 10th August, 1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax in Revision No. 28/88-89 and Further issue a writ of mandamus directing the said authority to re-hear the revision petition after taking on record the St I forms furnished by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.