9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of central sales tax liability as an admissible expenditure. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deduction of Central Sales Tax Liability as an Admissible Expenditure Facts and Background: The assessee-firm, which exports coffee on a large scale, claimed deductions for central sales tax liabilities amounting to Rs. 84,21,284 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 28,37,124 for the assessment year 1980-81. The dispute originated from whether central sales tax was leviable on export sales, a matter previously addressed by the Supreme Court, which had held that only the actual exporter was exempt from central sales tax, not the intermediate seller. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was subsequently amended to exempt the last sale or purchase preceding the export, subject to certain conditions. Assessee's Claim: The Coffee Board, apprehending that it might be liable to pay central sales tax, required exporters to deposit probable sales tax amounts or furnish bank guarantees. The assessee and others challenged this requirement in a writ petition before the Supreme Court. Based on the Coffee Board's circular, the assessee claimed that there was an accrued liability to pay the specified sums to the Coffee Board, which should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of its income for the respective years. Income-tax Officer's (IAC) Decision: The IAC disallowed the assessee's claim, stating that a mere provision does not amount to an accrued liability. Commissioner (Appeals) Decision: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction, stating that the payment was demanded by a statutory body and made to the Government of India. He noted that the liability arose from a specific performance of the contract, and the payment, though initially made, was refunded upon furnishing a bank guarantee. He cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, asserting that the method of accounting, not actual entries, determines the entitlement to deductions. Revenue's Argument: The revenue argued that the Supreme Court had indicated that the Coffee Board was not liable to pay any sales tax, and the liability was purely contingent. The Tribunal had previously upheld this view in the case of Ramesh Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, stating that there was no accrued liability. Assessee's Counter-Argument: The assessee contended that the liability subsisted by virtue of the Coffee Board's circular and cited various legal precedents to support the claim of an accrued liability. The invoices themselves contained a note regarding the sales tax recoverable from the assessee by the Coffee Board. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal noted that the facts stated by the Commissioner (Appeals) were not entirely correct. The assessee, being the ultimate exporter, was not liable to pay central sales tax. The liability was contingent upon the Coffee Board's apprehension that it might be liable to pay sales tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular from the Coffee Board did not impose a liability but required a contingency deposit or bank guarantee as a precautionary measure. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, which clarified that the Coffee Board was not liable to central sales tax if there was an agreement with a foreign buyer. The Supreme Court quashed the Coffee Board's circular to the extent it insisted on contingency deposits or bank guarantees. The Tribunal concluded that there was no accrued liability on the part of the assessee to pay the specified sums to the Coffee Board. It also noted that the mention of sales tax liability in the invoices did not constitute an accrual of liability. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited precedents and restored the IAC's order disallowing the claim for deduction of central sales tax for the two years in question. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the department's appeal, reversing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restoring the IAC's decision to disallow the assessee's claim for deduction of central sales tax liability. The appeals were thus partly allowed.
|
