Case: Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation

to the directions of the High Court. Hence no further verification was necessary. Therefore these two cases are distinguishable. However, a concession has to be availed at the time when it was available and in the manner prescribed. The common dictionary meaning of the word "concession" is the act of yielding or conceding as 10 a demand or argument, something conceded; usually implying a demand. claim, or request, "a thing yielded", "a grant".In the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt, the meaning of "concession" is given as under: "Concession, a grant by a central or local public authority to a private person or private persons for the utilisation or working of lands, an industry, a railway waterworks, etc." The expressions "rebate" and "concession" in the commercial parlance have the same concept. In Halsburys Laws of England, 4th edn. Para 198 it is observed as under: "Application for rebate. When a rating authority receives an application for a rebate it has a duty to determine whether the residential occupier is entitled to a rebate and, if so, the amount to which he is entitled; and it must request him in writing to furnish such information and evidence as it may reasonably require as to the persons who reside in the hereditament, his income, and the income of his spouse. Unless the rating authority is satisfied that the residential occupier has furnished all the information and evidence it requires, it is under no duty to grant a rebate. " (emphasis supplied) In Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and Ors. 1965 (3) SCR 626 , the appellant which was a public limited Company, sought exemption under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 in respect of certain sales but did not produce before the Officer the declaration forms from the purchaser dealers required to be produced under the proviso to that sub-clause granting exemption. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that proviso to the sub-clause was only directory and the dealer is not precluded where the proviso is not strictly complied with from producing other relevant evidence to prove that the s ales were for the purposes mentioned in the said sub-clause. The contention on behalf of the respondent was that the dealer can claim exemption under the sub-clause but he must comply strictly with the conditions under which the exemption can be grant ed. Rejecting the appellants contention, this Court held thus: "Section 5(2)(a) (ii) of the Act in effect exempts a specified turnover of a dealer from sales tax. The provision prescribing the exemption shall, therefore, be strictly construed. The substantive clause gives the exemption and the proviso qualifies the substantive clause. In effect the proviso says that part of the turnover of the selling dealer covered by the terms of sub-clause (ii) will be exempted provided a declaration in the form prescribed is furnished. To put it in other words, a dealer cannot get the exemption unless he furnishes the declaration in the prescribed form." * It was further held as under: "There is an understandable reason for the stringency of the provision s. The object of S. 5(2) (a) (ii) of the Act and the rules made thereunder is self-evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specified classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will wellnigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to an other for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the twofold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a decalration form in the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences, both of which the provisions of the said clause seek to avoid" * It can thus be seen that the submission namely that the dealer, even without filing a declaration, can later prove his case by producing other evidence, is also rejected. This ratio applies on all fours to the case before us. As already mentioned the concession can be granted only if the raw material is used in the industrial undertaking seeking such concession. For that a verification was necessary and that is why in the rule itself it is mentioned that a declaration has to be filed in Form 14 facilitating verification. Failure to file the same would automatically disentitle the Company from claiming any such concession.In any event the petitioner Company cannot claim concession at this distance as a matter of right. In Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa &Ors, 1991 AIR(SC) 1676, it was observed thus: "We are inclined to accept the view urged on behalf of the State that a finding regarding the invalidity of a levy need not automatically result in a direction for a refund of all collections thereof made earlier. The decalration regarding the invalidity of a provision and the determination of the relief that should be granted in consequence thereof are two different things and, in the latter sphere, the Court has, and must be held to have, a certain amount of discretion. It is well-settled proposition that it is open to the Court to grant, mould or restrict the relief in a manner most appropriate to the situation before it in such a way as to advance the interests of justice." In the instant case the octroi duty paid by the petitioner Company would naturally have been passed on to the consumers. Therefore there is no justification to claim the same at this distance of time and the court in its discretion can reject the same.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The learned counsel, however, submitted that even now the authorities can verify the necessary records which are audited and submitted to the authorities and find out whether the material was used in its own undertaking or not. We do not think we c an accede to this contention. Having failed to file the necessary declaration he cannot now turn-around and ask the authorities to make a verification of some records. The verification at the time when the raw material was still there is entirely different from a verification at a belated stage after it has ceased to be there. May be that the raw-material was used in the industrial undertaking as claimed by the petitioner Company or it may not be. In any event the failure to file the necessary declaration has necessarily prevented the authorities to have a properon these observations, Shri Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner Company contended that in the instant case though the procedural requirement is not fulfilled by filing a declaration in Form 14, still that is not a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court or the High Court by way of a writ and seek a refund.We are unable to agree. In Duggals case, the appellant, as a matter of fact, obtained certificate but failed to make the application for refund within time. It is in that context this Court observed that the Municipality was under a statutory obligation once the procedure followed is fulfilled and if it is not fulfilled the Municipality may decline. The granting of a certificate that the appellant used the goods for Government work made all the difference. But, in the instant case, the non-fulfillment of the requirement even though procedural, has disentitled the petitioner Company because there was no way to verify whether it was entitled for suchcan thus be seen that the submission namely that the dealer, even without filing a declaration, can later prove his case by producing other evidence, is also rejected. This ratio applies on all fours to the case before us. As already mentioned the concession can be granted only if the raw material is used in the industrial undertaking seeking such concession. For that a verification was necessary and that is why in the rule itself it is mentioned that a declaration has to be filed in Form 14 facilitating verification. Failure to file the same would automatically disentitle the Company from claiming any such concession.In any event the petitioner Company cannot claim concession at this distance as a matter ofthe instant case the octroi duty paid by the petitioner Company would naturally have been passed on to the consumers. Therefore there is no justification to claim the same at this distance of time and the court in its discretion can reject the same. For the above reasons, this Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs.