JUDGMENT
D. Raju, J.
1. The unsuccessful assessee, a manufacturer and a dealer in automotive thinwall bearings, bushings and thrust washers at Coimbatore is the petitioner in the above revision. The assessee reported for the assessment year 1978-79 a total turnover of Rs. 3,50,13,408 in its returns submitted under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee has also filed many C forms and claimed assessment at concessional rate of sales tax of 4 per cent on the basis of those C forms. The assessing authority after close scrutiny, during the course of assessment, found sixteen C forms to be defective and disallowed the claim for the concessional amount in respect of those turnover covered by the said C forms. The turnover in question relating to the said C forms is Rs. 1,31,467.26 and the said turnover was subjected to the levy at 13 per cent. The total taxable turnover of the assessee was determined at Rs. 3,48,46,209.50 by the proceedings dated December 15, 1980.
2. Objecting to the rejection of the said sixteen C forms and the denial of the concessional rate of taxation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority who confirmed the order of the assessing authority in this regard and rejected the appeal. Thereupon, the matter has been pursued before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also concurred with the conclusions of the authorities below and was of the view that in so far as the C forms comprised transaction exceeding the monetary limit of Rs. 5,000 in respect of more than one transaction they are invalid and consequently would not come to the rescue of the petitioner to claim concessional rate of taxation.
3. Aggrieved the above revision has been filed.
4. Mr. K. J. Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the rejection of sixteen C forms in question on the ground that it clubbed more than one transaction exceeding the monetary limit of Rs. 5,000 in force during the assessment year in question by virtue of rule 12(1), second proviso of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) is contrary to law and that the irregularity if any, in this regard could not be said to be fatal so as to invalidate the very C forms themselves resulting in denial of the concessional rate of taxation to the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) contended that the concessional rate of taxation is available only if the terms of rule 12 of the Rules are meticulously satisfied and that inasmuch as the second proviso to rule 12 of the Rules stood violated the Appellate Tribunal was right in denying the benefit of concessional taxation.
6. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In out view the conclusion of the authorities below to reject the C forms totally and thereby deny the concessional rate of taxation to the assessee does not appear to be correct. The provisions in section 8(1) and (4) of the Act read with the Rules referred to supra provides that a registered dealer shall be entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of taxation if such dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duty filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. The statutory form has been prescribed and there is no controversy over the fact that the dealer has produced the necessary C forms from the dealer concerned to whom the goods were sold by the petitioner. As noticed supra, the rejection of the forms was only on the ground that it contravened the second proviso to rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, in that each of the sixteen C forms rejected were found to cover in one declaration or certificate more than one transaction in excess of the monetary limit of Rs. 5,000 stipulated in the said proviso. The question for consideration would be as to whether the contravention complained of is such as to vitiate the legality and the efficacy of the C forms themselves so as to warrant its rejection in toto and deny the assessee of the benefit of concessional rate of taxation. No doubt, the assessee who claims concessional rate of taxation is obliged to file the declaration in form C in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the enactment as well as the Rules. The monetary limit of Rs. 5,000 originally contained in the second proviso of rule 12(1) of the Rules appears to have undergone an amendment with effect from April 1, 1979. The notification containing the amendment itself appears to have been issued on April 23, 1979. Factually, the sixteen C forms produced appear to have been got from the purchasing dealer after April 23, 1979. While the learned counsel for the assessee would contend that the action of the petitioner in getting the C forms in conformity with the Rules as on the date of the issue of the C forms by the purchasing dealer cannot be said to be contrary to law, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) would contend that even though the form is produced after the amendment it should conform to the requirement of the Rules as found in force during the assessment year in question.
7. The real object and purpose behind the provision for purchasing the necessary C form is to ensure that the sale was to a person and for the purposes contemplated in law and set out in the C form itself. The defect alleged in respect of the sixteen C forms in question, in our view, cannot be said to be so fundamental in respect of any essential feature going to the root of the matter so as to affect the very legality and validity of the very C form. It is not in dispute that if it is in respect of one transaction even though the monetary limit exceeds Rs. 5,000 the C form would have been secured properly. That apart, there is nothing in law which obliges the assessee to secure the C form simultaneously when the transaction of the sale takes place and the law permits production of the C forms issued by the purchasing dealer before finalisation of assessment and subject to showing reasonable cause even during the time of appeal and further appeal before the Tribunal. We are highlighting the above aspects only to impress that the ultimate requirement appears to be the actual production of the C forms as such to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the fact that it satisfies the category of sales entitled to concessional rate of tax, as prescribed in law. When there is no challenge based on the absence of any such requirement of particulars, to reject the C forms in their entirety and to deprive the assessee of the benefit of concessional rate of taxation on the mere ground that the forms produced comprised of more than one transaction in excess of the monetary limit, would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The denial of concessional rate of taxation conferred under the statute by prescribing a requirement under the Rules having the force of defeating the object of the statute, cannot be considered to be either reasonable or justifiable. The requirement relating to the monetary limit in respect of more than one transaction for an individual C form in our view would at the most be a directory requirement and cannot be construed to be a mandatory one so as to undermine the very efficacy or validity of the C forms themselves warranting their rejection. Consequently, we are of the view that the reasons which weighed with the authorities below to reject the C forms cannot have our approval in law and the order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside. Since the C forms in question were rejected only on this sole ground and not on any other ground, we see no reason to remit the matter and we declare that the petitioner shall be entitled to the concessional rate of taxation in respect of the turnover covered by the sixteen C forms in question. The tax case (revision) stands allowed. No costs.
8. Petition allowed.