9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Existence of the liability to pay purchase tax for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that no new information had been received subsequent to the original assessment. The Tribunal, however, concluded against the assessee based on the Supreme Court decision in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285. The Tribunal observed that the reopening was justified as the decision in Deputy CST v. Neroth Oil Mills Co. Ltd. [1982] 49 STC 249, which held that prawns and fish purchased and exported after processing were the same commodity, provided new information that warranted the reopening of the assessment. 2. Existence of the Liability to Pay Purchase Tax: The primary question referred to the court was whether the assessee had a valid purchase tax liability for the assessment years in question, given that the sales tax assessments were pending and no exemption had been granted by the Sales Tax Officer. - Constitutional and Statutory Provisions: Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution prohibits states from taxing export and import sales. Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, provides conditions under which the penultimate sale preceding the export is exempt from purchase tax. The exemption is contingent upon fulfilling three conditions: the sale must occur after the export agreement, it must be for fulfilling the export order, and it must be the last purchase before export. - Filing of Returns: The court emphasized that the liability to pay purchase tax persists even if the assessee claims exemption in their returns. The obligation to file returns is statutory, and the liability remains until it is legally nullified. The court cited CIT v. Royal Boot House [1970] 75 ITR 507 to affirm that the obligation to pay sales tax is not dependent on assessment or demand but on the statutory requirement to file returns. - Commercial Identity of Goods: The court referred to Deputy CST v. Neroth Oil Mills Co. Ltd. [1982] 49 STC 249, which held that prawns purchased and exported after processing were commercially the same commodity, thus exempting the purchase from tax. However, it was noted that the appeal against this decision was pending before the Supreme Court, indicating that the liability to pay tax had not been conclusively resolved. - Supreme Court Rulings: The court considered the Supreme Court's decision in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239, which reversed the Karnataka High Court's ruling and held that processed or frozen prawns were commercially the same as raw prawns, thereby exempting the purchase from tax under section 5(3). However, the court clarified that the exemption is not absolute and depends on the fulfillment of statutory conditions. - Provision for Purchase Tax: The court examined whether the provision made by the assessee for purchase tax was an ascertained liability. The original assessments had allowed the provision as a deduction, indicating it was considered an ascertained liability. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363, which held that the liability to pay sales tax is a deductible business expenditure even if disputed, provided there is a bona fide apprehension that the amount will become payable. - Prudent Businessman Standard: The court agreed with the Division Bench in Abad Fisheries v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 694, which held that a provision for liability to sales tax should be allowed if a prudent businessman, under similar circumstances, would reasonably apprehend the liability. The court found that the assessee acted prudently in making the provision for purchase tax liability. - Final Judgment: The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in denying the deduction for the provision for purchase tax liability. The question was answered in the negative, against the Revenue, and in favor of the assessee. The court reiterated that the Department could assess the amount to tax in a subsequent year if the liability ceased to exist under Section 41(1). Conclusion: The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was valid based on new information. However, it determined that the provision for purchase tax liability was an ascertained liability and should be allowed as a deduction. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the liability continues to exist until legally nullified, and the assessee was justified in making the provision under the mercantile system of accounting.
|
