The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State vs P.G. Shah and Co.

Kania, J.—This is an Application under the proviso to section 61(1) of the Bombay sales Tax Act, 1959, for directing the Tribunal to state the case.

It may be mentioned that the Application has been placed on Board and taken up for hearing with the consent of the Counsel for both the parties.

In respect of the assessment period 3-11-1967 to 21-10-1968, the Respondents; being the assessee, were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, who disallowed the claim for deduction made by the assessee in respect of purchases made by the assessee from M/s. J. Maneklal and Co. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed this claim of the assessees on the ground that the signature on the purchase vouchers did not tally with the signature of M/s. J. Maneklal and Co. in the registration certificate record. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner, but with no success. The assessees then went by way of second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. At the hearing before the Sales Tax Tribunal it appears that Mr. Damle, the learned Additional Government Agent, who appeared for the Petitioner Department, showed the Tribunal nine returns filed by M/s. J. Maneklal and Co. The Tribunal compared the signature on these returns with the signature on the purchase vouchers and found that the same tallied. On the basis of this conclusion the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, and allowed the claim of the assessee.

This Application arises from this judgment and order of the Tribunal.

Mr. Cooper, the learned Counsel for the Department, has sought to contend before us that the Tribunal was not entitled to compare the signatures made on the purchase vouchers with the signatures on the returns filed by M/s. J. Maneklal and Co. We find that there is no substance whatever in this contention. The returns of M/s. Maneklal and Co., the signatures on which have been compared with the signatures on the purchase vouchers, have been produced before the Tribunal by Mr. Damle who appeared for the Department. It is true that from the judgment of the Tribunal it does not appear that after the signatures were compared by the Tribunal and found to tally, Mr. Damle did object to the signatures on the purchasers on the returns, unless the party was produced. Such an objection was, however, without any substance and has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The returns were produced by Mr. Damle himself and could have been produced only for the purpose of comparison of signatures. It was not thereafter open to Mr. Damle to object to such comparison.

As far as the actual conclusion reached by the Tribunal on the comparison of the signatures is concerned, that is obviously in the realm of appreciation of evidence and no question of law can arise with respect of the same.

In the result, the Application is dismissed and the rule is discharged with costs fixed at Rs. 45/-.