9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (3) TMI 377 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the respondent-dealer has discharged that burden of proving that he has not collected the tax was, however, placed upon the dealer, by the said Amendment Act? Held that - It is faintly urged before us by the learned counsel for the respondent-dealer that he was not given a due opportunity to establish that he did not collect the tax and, therefore, the matter must be remanded to afford him such an opportunity. It is, however, not brought to our notice that any such grievance was made at any stage of the proceedings. In the circumstances, no such opportunity is called for. The appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside(except with respect to the turnover relating to groundnut oilcake) and the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Bangalore dated 20-8-1970 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment) Bangalore dated 22-1-1970 (against subject to the rider that the turnover relating to ground nut oilcake shall be exempt from tax) is restored. No order as to costs.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of Sales Tax Revision Petition by High Court 2. Applicability of Central Sales Tax on turnover of gingerly and castor seeds 3. Burden of proof on dealer regarding collection of tax 4. Interpretation of the requirement to prove tax collection under Section 10 of the Amendment Act 5. Adequacy of evidence to establish non-collection of tax by dealer 6. Opportunity for dealer to establish non-collection of tax 7. Challenge to the Tribunal's finding on groundnut oilcake turnover Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the High Court of Mysore's order dismissing the Sales Tax Revision Petition filed by the State. The issue revolved around the applicability of Central Sales Tax on the turnover of gingerly and castor seeds during a specific period. 2. The Tribunal and parties agreed that the turnover became subject to Central Sales Tax due to an amendment in Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act. However, the dealer was only liable to pay tax if collected, as per Section 10 of the Amendment Act, placing the burden of proof on the dealer to show non-collection of tax during the protected period. 3. The Tribunal focused on whether the dealer had discharged the burden of proof regarding tax collection. The bills issued by the dealer stating the price inclusive of tax were deemed insufficient evidence of tax collection by the Tribunal. 4. Relying on a Mysore High Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that to establish tax collection, it must be inferred that the seller intended to pass on the tax, the buyer agreed to pay it, and the dealer reflected such amounts separately in accounts. The Tribunal found the bills insufficient to prove tax collection. 5. The Tribunal rejected the requirement for tax collection to be reflected in the dealer's account books as a general proposition, emphasizing that each case's facts and evidence should determine if the burden of proof has been met. The endorsement on bills was considered prima facie proof, shifting the onus to the dealer to rebut the presumption of tax collection. 6. The dealer's argument for a remand to establish non-collection of tax was dismissed as no such grievance was raised earlier. The Tribunal's finding on groundnut oilcake turnover, exempt from tax as second sales, was not challenged. 7. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court and Tribunal orders, except for groundnut oilcake turnover. The Deputy Commissioner's order confirming the Assistant Commissioner's assessment was restored, with no costs awarded. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, interpretations, and decisions made by the Supreme Court judges in the case.
|
