1979 (12) TMI 134 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of sales tax payment pertaining to earlier years.
2. Disallowance of commission paid to employees based on net profit under section 37 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court addressed two main issues referred by the Tribunal. Firstly, regarding the disallowance of the payment of sales tax amounting to Rs. 14,036 pertaining to earlier years, the Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court emphasized that the liability to pay sales tax arises when the transaction is finalized, regardless of when the actual payment is made. Since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the liability for sales tax was deemed to have arisen in the year of the sales transaction, making it impermissible to claim a deduction for sales tax liability from previous years during the relevant assessment year.

Secondly, the Court dealt with the disallowance of commission paid to employees based on the net profit of the firm under section 37 of the Act. The Court highlighted that the amount of remuneration or salary paid to employees must align with genuine business needs. Excessive and inflated remuneration not commensurate with business requirements can be rightfully disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had significantly increased the salaries of three employees during the relevant year, and granting further remuneration based on profits earned was deemed unreasonable considering the business needs of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the expenditure as it was not in line with the reasonable business activities of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Court answered both questions in the affirmative, favoring the department and ruling against the assessee. The department was awarded costs, assessed at Rs. 200, with the counsel's fee also set at the same amount. The reference was answered in the affirmative, upholding the decisions made by the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.