9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1957 (1) TMI 27 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Validity of the assessment order under Section 12(2)(b) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of deduction under rule 20(2) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules. 3. Compliance with the provisions of rule 17 for assessment based on monthly returns. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the assessment order made under Section 12(2)(b) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, alleging lack of compliance with the proviso requiring the dealer to be given a reasonable opportunity to prove the correctness of the returns. The court acknowledged the lack of compliance but noted that as no damage occurred to the petitioner due to the acceptance of the total turnover reported, the assessment was upheld. Issue 2: The petitioner contended that a deduction under rule 20(2) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules should have been allowed. Rule 20(2) provides for a deduction for registered manufacturers, and the court referred to a previous judgment emphasizing that the manufacturer must have been registered at the time of manufacture. As the petitioner was not a registered manufacturer during the relevant period, the deduction was rightly disallowed. Issue 3: Regarding compliance with rule 17 for monthly assessment, the court noted that the petitioner's net turnover exceeded the threshold for adopting the alternative assessment method under sub-rules (2) to (5) of rule 17. However, as the firm had not complied with the provisions of rule 17(1) by intimating the desire for such assessment, the court held that filing monthly returns alone was insufficient to warrant assessment under the alternative method. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition based on the findings related to the three contentions raised by the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with registration requirements for claiming deductions and the need for explicit adherence to assessment rules for alternative assessment methods.
|
