High CourtsDivision Bench(1990) 11 MAD CK 0057

Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division vs M.S.V. Mani

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 November 1990

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mishra, J · Govindasamy, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Case (R) No. 551 of 1980

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 329 words
1.

The only interference asked for in the instant application is with respect to the consideration shown by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

(Additional Bench), Coimbatore, to the assessee for production of the E1 and C forms for the purpose of verification and fresh disposal on the

basis of verification. The Tribunal has stated :

Admittedly time was granted by the assessing officer for production of E1 and C declaration forms before him. Even though sufficient time was

granted by the assessing officer for the production of the same the appellant did not produce the same. The appellant has not given convincing

reason as to why the forms E1 and C have not been produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Certainly there is lack of diligence on

the part of the appellant in producing the E1 and C declaration forms. But, however, that is not a ground for rejecting the E1 and C forms sought

to be produced now. In our opinion, the appellant deserves an opportunity to produce the E1 and C forms for the purpose of verification and fresh

orders on the basis of verification.

2.

No objection can be taken to such exercise of discretion by an authority vested with judicial power. All that should concern any judicial or

quasi-judicial authority is the requirement of justice and effective justice. No one can suggest that if certain concessions or exemptions were likely

to be made available to the taxpayer on the basis of the E1 and C forms, only because they were not produced by him before the assessing officer

for no apparently explainable cause, the judicial or quasi-judicial authority should reject production of any such document at a later stage. Such

concern for justice should be appreciated than condemned. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had such discretion and it committed no error

in exercising the same. There is no merit in the petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.

3.

Petition dismissed.