9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1984 (11) TMI 309 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Interpretation of the extent of contravention of the recitals of form 15 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Analysis: The case involved a reference by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding the determination of the extent of contravention of the recitals of form 15. The respondent, a registered dealer and manufacturer of gaskets, purchased goods at a reduced tax rate under section 11 by furnishing declarations in form No. 15. The Sales Tax Officer found a contravention in the usage of goods purchased under form No. 15, leading to an assessment based on the pro rata method. The Assistant Commissioner reduced the contravention percentage to 11%, considering branch transfers. The Tribunal, however, presumed the respondent utilized goods in permissible sales, contrary to the statutory burden under section 14(3) of the Act. The Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Berar Oil Industries deemed the Tribunal's presumption erroneous as it would nullify the burden of proof requirement under section 14(3). Section 14(3) places the onus on the assessee to prove the non-liability of purchases in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal's presumption, if accepted, would equate an assessee failing to meet this burden with one who did, undermining the statutory provision. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's approach was flawed, and the question posed in the reference must be answered in the negative. Additionally, the Court noted the existence of a circular providing relief in such cases, which, if applicable to the respondent, should be granted. Considering the circumstances, no costs were awarded in the matter. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the statutory burden on the assessee to prove the non-liability of purchases in the taxable turnover under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal provisions and avoiding presumptions that negate statutory requirements.
|
