9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant society qualifies as a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 2. Whether the penalties imposed for non-registration and late payment of tax should be upheld. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the appellant society qualifies as a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The appellant society, Mehsana District Shankar-4 Seeds Produce and Sales Co-operative Society Ltd., was formed to regulate the production of Shanker-4 quality cotton seeds as per government policy. The society's activities included distributing seeds obtained from the government to its members and selling the seeds produced by its members. The Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held the society liable as a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that it did not own the goods at any stage and merely facilitated transactions on behalf of its members, thus should not be considered a dealer. The society's transactions were regulated by the government, and it only collected amounts to cover administrative and other expenses, not for profit. However, the tribunal noted that the society's bye-laws and its accounting practices indicated activities consistent with those of a dealer. Bye-laws No. 2(2), 2(5), and 2(9) provided for the purchase, sale, and storage of goods, and obtaining loans for these purposes. The society issued regular sale bills and maintained purchase and sales accounts, showing it engaged in buying and selling goods. The tribunal referred to several precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Harmadia Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, which held that a society acting as a commission agent and engaging in business activities is a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. The tribunal concluded that despite the government-regulated prices and quantities, the society's activities constituted business transactions with a profit motive, making it a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Issue 2: Whether the penalties imposed for non-registration and late payment of tax should be upheld. The appellant society argued that it was under a bona fide impression that it was not liable for registration and tax under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The tribunal acknowledged that the society was formed by agriculturists to implement government policy and that it had a genuine belief of non-liability. Considering these factors, the tribunal decided that no penalties should be imposed for non-registration and late payment of tax. The penalties under sections 45(2)(c) and 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, were removed. Conclusion: The tribunal held that the appellant society qualifies as a dealer under section 2(10) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. However, the penalties imposed for non-registration and late payment of tax were removed due to the society's bona fide belief of non-liability. The orders of the Sales Tax Officer, as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, were modified accordingly, and any penalties paid were to be refunded to the appellant.
|
