9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax regarding tax collection from wholesalers in liquor. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range II, Patna, which required them to provide information about sales made to various retailers and details of tax collected. The Deputy Commissioner invoked section 44AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates wholesalers in liquor to collect tax at a specified rate from retail dealers on sales made by them. The petitioners contested the order's validity. The respondents referred to previous court judgments, including Md. Parwez Ahmed v. Union of India and State of Bihar v. CIT, which interpreted the term "purchase price" to include excise duty and cost price of goods for retailers. The respondents argued that the same interpretation should apply to wholesale dealers as well, as both fall under the definition of "seller" in the relevant sections of the Act. The senior advocate for the petitioners argued that the previous judgments were specific to retail dealers and may not be directly applicable to wholesale dealers. However, the respondents contended that wholesale dealers are also sellers under the Act and are obligated to furnish information about sales and tax collection as per the provisions of section 44AC. The court noted that the period in question predated an amendment to the Act, which clarified that excise duty should be included in the purchase price for tax calculation purposes. Citing the precedents and the legislative amendment, the court upheld the authorities' decision that wholesalers in liquor must collect tax at the prescribed rate on the total purchase price, including excise duty and other costs, along with a surcharge. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and dismissed both writ applications, affirming the requirement for wholesalers to collect tax as per the provisions of section 44AC.
|
