{"id":201889,"date":"1977-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977"},"modified":"2017-12-02T10:46:42","modified_gmt":"2017-12-02T05:16:42","slug":"assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977","title":{"rendered":"Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1339, \t\t  1977 SCR  (3)\t 85<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nASSESSING AUTHORITY, PATIALA DISTRICT PATIALA ANDORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. PATIALA BISCUITS MFG. CO. NOW AS DALMIABISCUIT PVT. LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1339\t\t  1977 SCR  (3)\t 85\n 1977 SCC  (2) 389\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948--Assessee entitled to\n\tcertain deductions if seller and buyer are registered  deal-\n\ters--Both  applied  for\t registration--Certificates   issued\n\tlater  with retrospective effect--Dealers--If should  be  in\n\tphysical possession of registration certificate at the\ttime\n\tof sale to claim deduction.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    According to s. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General  Sales\n\tTax  Act,  1948, taxable turnover means the part of a  deal-\n\ter's  gross turnover during any period which  remains  after\n\tdeducting  therefrom the turnover during that\tperiod,\t  on\n\tsales  to a registered dealer of goods declared by him in  a\n\tprescribed   form   as\tbeing intended for  re-sale  in\t the\n\tState.\tSection 7(1) provides that no dealer shall carry  on\n\tbusiness  as  a\t dealer unless he has  been  registered\t and\n\tpossesses a registration certificate.  Rule 5 of the  Punjab\n\tGeneral\t Sales\tTax Rules, 1949 as amended in  October\t1966\n\tprovides that the certificate of registration issued by\t the\n\tAssessing Authority shall be valid from the date of  receipt\n\tby him of the application for registration or from the\tdate\n\tof  Commencement  of the liability to pay tax  whichever  is\n\tlater.\t Rule 26 provides that a dealer\t claiming  deduction\n\tunder s. 5(2)(a)(ii) shall produce on demand the cash  memos\n\tor  bill  and  a declaration in writing\t by  the  purchasing\n\tdealer that the goods specified in the certificate of regis-\n\ttration are for use by him.\n\t    The assessee (respondent) and the purchasing dealer, the\n\tsole  selling  agent of the assessee, made  applications  on\n\tJanuary\t 1, 1966 for registration as dealers. The  registra-\n\ttion certificates were issued to them on March 27, 1966 with\n\tretrospective effect from January 1, 1966.\n\t    The\t Assessing Authority rejected the  assessee's  claim\n\tfor deduction under s. 5(2)(a)(ii) of sales made by them  to\n\tthe  purchasing dealer on the ground that during the  period\n\tbetween January 1 and March 31, 1966, the purchasing  dealer\n\twas not in possession of the registration certificate.\n\t    In\ta  petition under Art. 226 of the  Constitution\t the\n\tHigh Court held\t that since the certificate of\tregistration\n\thad been granted with effect from January 1, 1966, i.e.\t the\n\tdate  of  application, it could not be said that  the  sales\n\tduring the quarter were to an unregistered dealer.\n\t    On appeal it was contended that to be entitled to deduc-\n\ttion  under the Act both the purchasing and selling  dealers\n\t'should\t be in physical possession Of the registration\tcer-\n\ttificate at the time of sale.\n\tDismissing the appeal,\n\t    HELD: The assessees were entitled to deduction under  s.\n\t5(2)(a)(ii) in respect of sales made by them to the purchas-\n\ting dealer during the quarter.\n\t[90 G]\n\t    (a) At the relevant time, the registering authority\t was\n\tfully  competent  to issue the registration  certificate  to\n\tthe dealer with retrospective effect from the date of filing\n\tof  the application.  The amendment of r. 5 made in  October\n\t1966  did  not\tconfer any new or additional  power  on\t the\n\tregistering authority but was only clarificatory of the law.\n\tThe language of s. 7 is clear that the registering authority\n\thad  the power to give effect to the registration  from\t the\n\tdate of making the application.\t [90 F; A]\n\t86\n\t(b) The words \"has been registered and possesses a registra-\n\ttion  certificate\" in s. 7(1) should be construed in  accord\n\twith  the general tenor of the section as a whole, and in  a\n\tmanner\twhich  would avoid  oppressive,\t  unreasonable\t and\n\tanomalous  results.   So  construed it could  never  be\t the\n\tintention  of  the legislature that a dealer liable  to\t pay\n\ttax, who has in compliance with the requirements of s.\t7(2)\n\tand (3) done all which lay in his power to obtain the regis-\n\ttration certificate, should pull down his shutters and\tkeep\n\this  business closed under pain of being punished and  await\n\tindefinitely  the  pleasure and leisure of  the\t  prescribed\n\tauthority in issuing the registration certificate.  Adoption\n\tof such a construction would be to make an applicant  liable\n\tto punishment for the laches and delays of the authority and\n\tits office.  [90 B-C]\n\tChandra\t Industries  v. The Punjab State &amp; Ors.\t 29,  S.T.O.\n\t558, approved.\n\t     (c)  The  requirement of r. 26  will  be  substantially\n\tsatisfied  if the number of the registration certificate  is\n\tsupplied  by the claimant alongwith the declaration  of\t the\n\tpurchasing dealer at the time of assessment to the Assessing\n\tAuthority.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      [90 E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 721 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     (From  the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.1970  of\t the<br \/>\n\tPunjab &amp; Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1831 of 1968).<br \/>\n\tK.S. Suri, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tR.S. Sharma and A. D. Mathur, for the respondent.<br \/>\n\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n\t    SARKARIA, J.&#8211;The short question involved in this appeal<br \/>\n\ton  certificate,  directed against a judgment  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\n\tCourt of Punjab and Haryana is: Whether the sales made to. a<br \/>\n\tdealer\twho  has applied for registration under\t the  Punjab<br \/>\n\tGeneral\t Sales Tax Act 1948, before his application  is\t al-<br \/>\n\tlowed, are to be treated as sales to an unregistered  dealer<br \/>\n\tor registered dealer, when the registration is effected from<br \/>\n\tthe date of the application ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    M\/s. Patiala Biscuits Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinaf-<br \/>\n\tter  referred  to as the assessees) appointed  M\/s.  Rajpura<br \/>\n\tBiscuit\t Company as their sole selling agents.\t The  agents<br \/>\n\tmade an application on 1.1.1966 in the appropriate form\t for<br \/>\n\tregistration as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales\t Tax<br \/>\n\tAct,  1948 (hereinafter called the Act).   On the same\tday,<br \/>\n\tthe  agents (referred hereafter as the purchasing    dealer)<br \/>\n\tmade  a similar application for obtaining registration\tcer-<br \/>\n\ttificate, under the Central Sales Tax Act.   The appropriate<br \/>\n\tAssessing Authority accepted both these applications and  on<br \/>\n\tMarch  27, 1966\t issued\t the registration  Certificate\twith<br \/>\n\teffect from 1.1.1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The assessees filed their return for the quarter  ending<br \/>\n\tMarch  31, 1966 in April, 1966 and claimed deductions  under<br \/>\n\ts.  5(2)(a)(ii)\t in  respect of sales of the  value  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n\t32,56,267.35  made by them between 1-1-1966 to 31-3-1966  to<br \/>\n\tthe  purchasing\t dealer.  The Assessing\t Authority,  Patiala<br \/>\n\trejected  this\tclaim  and assessed tax,  amounting  to\t Rs.<br \/>\n\t1,99,558.94. on the proceeds of the sales made by the asses-<br \/>\n\tsees   to  the\tpurchasing  dealer  between   1.1.1966\t and<br \/>\n\t27.3.1966.   The reason given by the Assessing Authority for<br \/>\n\trefusing  this relief to the assessees was that during\tthis<br \/>\n\tperiod, the purchasing dealer was not in possession<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t87<\/span><br \/>\n\tof the registration certificate, the same having been issued<br \/>\n\tonly on March 27, 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     The assesses impugned the validity of this order of the<br \/>\n\tAssessing  Authority by a writ petition in the\tHigh  Court,<br \/>\n\tunder Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution.   The High Court<br \/>\n\theld  that  since the certificate of registration  had\tbeen<br \/>\n\tgranted with effect from 1-1-1966, which was the date of the<br \/>\n\tapplication, it could not be said that the sales during this<br \/>\n\tperiod\tcommencing from 1.1.1966, were made to\tan  unregis-<br \/>\n\ttered dealer.\tIt further noted that apart from the  asses-<br \/>\n\tsees, the purchasing dealer had also, been taxed with regard<br \/>\n\tto the same transactions  resulting in double taxation which<br \/>\n\twas  against the basic scheme of the Act, the Rules and\t the<br \/>\n\tnotifications  issued thereunder.   On these  premises,\t the<br \/>\n\tHigh  Court  allowed the writ petition and quashed  the\t im-<br \/>\n\tpugned\torder  to  the extent to which it  was\tcontrary  to<br \/>\n\ts.5(2)(a)(ii)  of the Act in respect of sales  made  between<br \/>\n\t1.1.1966  and  27.3.1966. The High Court however  granted  a<br \/>\n\tcertificate  under Art. 133(1)(a) and (c) of  the  Constitu-<br \/>\n\ttion,  on the basis of which the Revenue has come in  appeal<br \/>\n\tto this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     It would be appropriate to have, at  the outset, a look<br \/>\n\tat   the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.<br \/>\n\tThe material provision is in s. 5(2) (a) (ii) which reads as<br \/>\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    &#8220;In\t this  Act the\texpression  &#8220;taxable<br \/>\n\t\t      turnover&#8221;\t means the part of a dealer&#8217;s  gross<br \/>\n\t\t      turnover during any period which remains after<br \/>\n\t\t      deducting therefrom:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t(a)   his   turnover  during   that   period<br \/>\n\t\t      on &#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t  (i)\t&#8230;.\t     &#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t  (ii)\tsales  to  a  registered  dealer  of<br \/>\n\t\t      goods   &#8230;.  declared by him in a  prescribed<br \/>\n\t\t      form  as\tbeing intended\tfor re-sale  in\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      State of Punjab  &#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\tProvided that in case of such sales,<br \/>\n\t\t      a declaration duly filled up and signed by the<br \/>\n\t\t      register dealer to whom the goods are sold and<br \/>\n\t\t      containing  prescribed particulars on  a\tpre-<br \/>\n\t\t      scribed  form  (obtained from  the  prescribed<br \/>\n\t\t      authority)  is  furnished by  the\t dealer\t who<br \/>\n\t\t      sells the goods.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t      Section  7  provides for the  registration  of<br \/>\n\t\t      dealers.\tIt says:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t &#8220;(1) No dealer shall, while being liable to<br \/>\n\t\t      pay tax under this Act, carry on business as a<br \/>\n\t\t      dealer  unless  he  has  been  registered\t and<br \/>\n\t\t      possesses a registration certificate.<br \/>\n\t\t\t  (2)  Every dealer required by\t sub-section<br \/>\n\t\t      (1) to be registered dealer shall make  appli-<br \/>\n\t\t      cation in this behalf in the prescribed manner<br \/>\n\t\t      to the prescribed authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t (3) If the said authority is satisfied that<br \/>\n\t\t      an  application for registration is in  order,<br \/>\n\t\t      he shall, in accordance with<br \/>\n\t\t      7&#8211;240SCI\/77<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t      88<\/span><br \/>\n\t\t      such rules and on payment of such fees as\t may<br \/>\n\t\t      be  prescribed, register the  application\t and<br \/>\n\t\t      grant him a certificate of registration in the<br \/>\n\t\t      prescribed  forms which may specify the  class<br \/>\n\t\t      or  classes of goods for the purpose  of\tsub-<br \/>\n\t\t      clause (ii) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of<br \/>\n\t\t      section 5.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t  (4) &#8230;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t  (5) When any dealer has paid the amount of<br \/>\n\t\t      penalty imposed under s. 23 in respect of\t any<br \/>\n\t\t      contravention  of\t sub-section  (1)  of\tthis<br \/>\n\t\t      section, the Commissioner shall register\tsuch<br \/>\n\t\t      dealer  and grant him a certificate of  regis-<br \/>\n\t\t      tration,\tand  such  registration\t shah\ttake<br \/>\n\t\t      effect  as it had been made under\t sub-section<br \/>\n\t\t      (3)  of this section on the dealer&#8217;s  applica-<br \/>\n\t\t      tion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t   (6) ..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t    In case a dealer commits default is not getting  himself<br \/>\n\tregistered  as\trequired  by Sec.  7,  certain\tconsequences<br \/>\n\tfollow.\t Under s.11(6) such a defaulting dealer is liable to<br \/>\n\tbe assessed on the basis of best judgment and the  Assessing<br \/>\n\tAuthority may, in addition  to\tthe  tax so assessed, impose<br \/>\n\ton  him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one  and\thalf<br \/>\n\ttimes  that amount.   Such a defaulter is further liable  to<br \/>\n\tprosecution  under s. 23 (1) for carrying on business  as  a<br \/>\n\tdealer\t in contravention of the provisions of s. 7(1),\t and<br \/>\n\ton conviction, he can be sentenced to fine not exceeding Rs.<br \/>\n\t1,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The\t application for registration has to be made to\t the<br \/>\n\tappropriate  Authority in the prescribed Form.\t The  manner<br \/>\n\tin  which such\t an application is to be dealt with  by\t the<br \/>\n\tAuthority is provided in Rule 5 of the Punjab General  Sales<br \/>\n\tTax Rules, 1949 framed under the Act. This Rule as it  stood<br \/>\n\tbefore the amendment of October 10, 1966 was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    &#8220;When the appropriate Assessing Authori-<br \/>\n\t\t      ty, after making any enquiry that he may think<br \/>\n\t\t      necessary, is satisfied that the applicant  is<br \/>\n\t\t      a bona fide dealer and has correctly given all<br \/>\n\t\t      the requisite information that he has deposit-<br \/>\n\t\t      ed  the registration fee into the\t appropriate<br \/>\n\t\t      Government  treasury and that the\t application<br \/>\n\t\t      is in order, he shall register the dealer\t and<br \/>\n\t\t      shall  issue a Certificate of registration  in<br \/>\n\t\t      Form  S.T.III  or\t S.T. IV  according  as\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      dealer  has  one\tor more than  one  place  of<br \/>\n\t\t      business in Punjab.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t    Rule 5 was amended by Punjab Government Notification No.<br \/>\n\tGSR237\/PA 46\/48\/S-27\/Amd(5)\/66 dated 10th October, 1966, and<br \/>\n\tin  place of the last sentence commencing  with\t the   words<br \/>\n\t&#8220;in   .Form S.T\t &#8230;.  &#8220;of the old Rule, the  following\t was<br \/>\n\tsubstituted:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    &#8221;  &#8230;.  in Form S.T. IV which shall  be<br \/>\n\t\t      valid from  the date of receipt of application<br \/>\n\t\t      for registration by the Assess-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t      89<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t      ing Authority or from the date of commencement<br \/>\n\t\t      of  the  liability to pay\t tax,  whichever  is<br \/>\n\t\t      later.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t      Ride 26 provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    &#8220;A dealer, who wishes to deduct from his<br \/>\n\t\t      gross turnover the amount in respect of a sale<br \/>\n\t\t      on the ground that he is entitled to make such<br \/>\n\t\t      deduction\t under the provisions  of  subclause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t      (ii)  of\tclause\t(a) of\tsub-section  (2)  of<br \/>\n\t\t      section  5 of the Act, shall, on demand,\tpro-<br \/>\n\t\t      duce in respect of such a sate the copy of the<br \/>\n\t\t      relevant\tcash memo or bill, according as\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      sale is a cash sale or a sale on credit, and a<br \/>\n\t\t      declaration   in writing in Form S.T. XXII  by<br \/>\n\t\t      the  purchasing dealer or by his\tagent,\tthat<br \/>\n\t\t      the goods in question are intended for re-sale<br \/>\n\t\t      in  the  State  of Punjab or  such  goods\t are<br \/>\n\t\t      specified\t in his certificate of\tregistration<br \/>\n\t\t      for  use\tby  him in the\tmanufacture  in\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      State. of Punjab of any goods for sale.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t\t      Rule  26 was also amended later.\tThe  amended<br \/>\n\t\t      Rule  is,\t in substance, the  same,  excepting<br \/>\n\t\t      that it was clarified that the dealer claiming<br \/>\n\t\t      deduction\t has to produce the  declaration  of<br \/>\n\t\t      the purchasing dealer, in the prescribed form,<br \/>\n\t\t      at the time of assessment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t    The\t main contention of Shri K.S. Suri, learned  Counsel<br \/>\n\tfor  the appellant is that the declaration  form  prescribed<br \/>\n\tunder  the  old Rule 26, as it stood at the  material  time,<br \/>\n\trequired the purchasing dealer\t   to specify at the time of<br \/>\n\tthe  sale, in the prescribed Form S.T. XXII, the  number  of<br \/>\n\tthe registration certificate.\tStress has also been  placed<br \/>\n\ton the words &#8220;registered and possesses&#8221; used in\t sub-section<br \/>\n\t(1)  of Sec. 7, which according to Counsel, indicate that  a<br \/>\n\tdealer\thaving a taxable turnover, cannot validly  carry  on<br \/>\n\this  business,\tunless he is actually registered and  is  in<br \/>\n\tphysical possession of the  registration  certificate issued<br \/>\n\tunder  Sec. 7.\t A compliance with the\taforesaid  mandatory<br \/>\n\trequirement of s. 7(1) and Rule 26, Form XXII&#8211;proceeds\t the<br \/>\n\targument&#8211;could be possible only if at the time of the sales<br \/>\n\tin  question, the purchasing dealer as well as\tthe  selling<br \/>\n\tdealer,\t both, were   in actual possession of the  requisite<br \/>\n\tregistration  certificates.    Shri  Suri  has\tadopted\t the<br \/>\n\treasoning  of  the Sales-Tax Tribunal in Appeal No.  109  of<br \/>\n\t1967-68\t (M\/s. Darshan Soap Mills, Batala Road, Amritsar  v.<br \/>\n\tThe State) decided on 12-2-1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    It is contended that Rule 5, as it stood at the material<br \/>\n\ttime, did not empower the registering Authority to grant the<br \/>\n\tregistration  Certificate retrospectively, with effect\tfrom<br \/>\n\tthe  date of the application.It is maintained such  a  power<br \/>\n\twas  conferred on the Authority, only by the Punjab  Govern-<br \/>\n\tment Notification No. GSR-237\/PA 46\/48\/S-27 Amd.(5)\/16\twith<br \/>\n\tprospective effect from October 10, 1966.<br \/>\n\t    Taking the last point first, we are of opinion that\t the<br \/>\n\tamendment  of Rule 5 by the Punjab Government  Notification,<br \/>\n\tdated October 10, 1966, did not confer any new or additional<br \/>\n\tpower on the registering Authority.   The power to grant the<br \/>\n\tregistration  Certificate   with effect from the date of the<br \/>\n\tapplication  was  already there.   The\tamendment  was\tonly<br \/>\n\tclarificatory of the law as it stood prior to it.   It only<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t90<\/span><br \/>\n\tmade  explicit\twhich  was formerly  implicit.\t A  definite<br \/>\n\tindication  is available in the language of sub-section\t (5)<br \/>\n\tread  with sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 7, . itself,\tthat<br \/>\n\tthe  registering Authority had the power to give  effect  to<br \/>\n\tthe registration from the date of making the application.<br \/>\n\t    Be\tthat at it may, the words &#8220;has been  registered\t and<br \/>\n\tpossesses a registration certificate&#8221; used in sub-s. (1 ) of<br \/>\n\ts.  7 have to be construed in accord with the general  tenor<br \/>\n\tof  the\t Section as a whole, and in   a manner\twhich  would<br \/>\n\tavoid  oppressive, unreasonable and anomalous results.\t  As<br \/>\n\trightly\t pointed  out in Chandra Industries  v.\t The  Punjab<br \/>\n\tState  and ors.(1), it could never be the intention of\t the<br \/>\n\tLegislature  that  a  dealer liable to pay tax\twho  has  in<br \/>\n\tcompliance with the requirements of sub-sections (2) and (3)<br \/>\n\tof  s. 7, &#8220;done all which lay in power to obtain the  regis-<br \/>\n\ttration certificate, should pull down his shutters and\tkeep<br \/>\n\this business closed under pain of being punished   under  s.<br \/>\n\t23(1) and await indefinitely the pleasure and leisure of the<br \/>\n\tprescribed  authority in issuing the  registration  certifi-<br \/>\n\tcate.\t Adoption such a construction would be to  make\t the<br \/>\n\tapplicant liable to punishment for the laches and delays  of<br \/>\n\tthe authority and its office.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    As\tregards\t the requirement enjoined by the  Form\tpre-<br \/>\n\tscribed under Rule. 26, to enter the number of the registra-<br \/>\n\ttion certificate in the declaration of the purchasing dealer<br \/>\n\tat  the time of sale, the same\t has to be viewed with\trea-<br \/>\n\tsonable flexibility and reconciled with Rule 5 as  clarified<br \/>\n\tby  the\t Notification, dated October 10, 1966.\t  Thus\tcon-<br \/>\n\tstrued harmoniously with the related  statutory\t provisions,<br \/>\n\tthe requirement of Rule 26 will be substantially  satisfied,<br \/>\n\tif  the\t number of   the  registration\tcertificate&#8211;granted<br \/>\n\tsubsequently, but covering retrospectively the period of the<br \/>\n\tsales  in respect of which deduction is claimed-is  supplied<br \/>\n\tby the claimant along with the declaration of the purchasing<br \/>\n\tdealer at the time of assessment to the Assessing Authority.<br \/>\n\tIt  is\tthus clear as daylight that at\tthe  relevant  time,<br \/>\n\talso,\t the  registering Authority was fully  competent  to<br \/>\n\tissue\tthe  registration  certificate to  the\tdealer\twith<br \/>\n\tretrospective effect from the date   of filing the  applica-<br \/>\n\ttion.  A perusal of the registration certificate would\tshow<br \/>\n\tthat it was, in terms, made effective from January 1,  1966.<br \/>\n\tThis is manifest from the words &#8220;the dealer is liable to pay<br \/>\n\ttax    w.e.f. 1.1.1966&#8221; used by the Authority,\tprominently,<br \/>\n\tin the heading of the Certificate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    It\tnecessarily  follows,  therefore,  that\t during\t the<br \/>\n\tperiod\t  from 1.1.1966 to 27.3.1966, also,  the  purchasing<br \/>\n\tdealer\twas  a registered dealer possessing  a\tregistration<br \/>\n\tCertificate within the Contemplation of s. 7(1) of the\tAct.<br \/>\n\tThis  being the correct position, the assessees; were  enti-<br \/>\n\ttled  to  the deduction under s. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the  Act  in<br \/>\n\trespect\t of the sales made by them to the purchasing  dealer<br \/>\n\tduring\tthe  whole of the quarter ending  31st\tMarch  1966.<br \/>\n\tThe  High  Court  was therefore, right\tin  determining\t the<br \/>\n\tquestion  posed, in favour of the assessees and against\t the<br \/>\n\tRevenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t       The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tP.B.R\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n\t(1) 29, S.T.O. 558.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t91<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1339, 1977 SCR (3) 85 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: ASSESSING AUTHORITY, PATIALA DISTRICT PATIALA ANDORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. PATIALA BISCUITS MFG. CO. NOW AS DALMIABISCUIT PVT. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Assessing Authority, Patiala ... vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now ... on 1 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Assessing Authority, Patiala ... vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now ... on 1 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-02T05:16:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-02T05:16:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2185,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\",\"name\":\"Assessing Authority, Patiala ... vs M\\\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now ... on 1 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-02T05:16:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Assessing Authority, Patiala ... vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now ... on 1 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Assessing Authority, Patiala ... vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now ... on 1 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-02T05:16:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977","datePublished":"1977-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-02T05:16:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977"},"wordCount":2185,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977","name":"Assessing Authority, Patiala ... vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now ... on 1 March, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-02T05:16:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assessing-authority-patiala-vs-ms-patiala-biscuits-mfg-co-now-on-1-march-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Assessing Authority, Patiala &#8230; vs M\/S. Patiala Biscuits Mfg. Co. Now &#8230; on 1 March, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}