State of Tamil Nadu vs Goodyear India Limited

K.A. Swami, C.J.—The State Government has come in revision against the order dated March 12, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax

Appellate Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, in T.A. No. 627 of 1990. It is aggrieved to the extent, the Tribunal has held that form XXI-A issued under rule

22-B(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, even though it may contain entries of transactions for more than one month, has to be

considered as valid only to the extent the entries relate to the relevant month; the entries relating to the succeeding month be excluded, as otherwise

the assessee be deprived of the benefit available.

The contention of the State is that according to rule 22-B(5), one form has to be used for each month and the transactions of one month alone

should be entered in one form and that when the assessee has entered the transactions beyond one month, the entire form should be considered as

invalid because it does not conform to the requirement of the rule. It is not possible to accept this contention. The object of providing such a rule is

only to facilitate the assessment and to facilitate effective and proper enforcement of the Act, inasmuch as if one form contains transactions of only

one month, it would be very easy to adjudicate the assessment. On the mere fact that transactions pertaining to the succeeding month are also

found in the form pertaining to the relevant month, it is not possible to hold that the entire form is vitiated or invalidated. For the fault committed by

the assessee in including the transactions for more than one month in one form, he cannot be punished by invalidating the entire form which can

very well be treated as the one relating to the transactions of one month included in the form. By doing so, the State is not put to any loss of tax.

The rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. They cannot be interpreted so as to defeat the substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the

decision of the Tribunal that the form should be considered as valid for the transactions pertaining to the relevant month is just and fair and it does

not in any way cause loss to the Revenue. Hence, we see no ground to admit the tax case; accordingly, it is rejected.

Petition dismissed.