9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Rectification of assessment order under the RST Act for the year 1967-68. - Claiming exemption under s. 10(1) of the CST (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969. - Dispute regarding the collection of Central Sales Tax (CST) on inter-State sales of Jawar and Bajra. - Appeal against the order of the Dy. CIT (A-I), Jaipur. - Interpretation of s. 10 of the CST Act for exemption from tax liability. - Onus of proving non-collection of tax under the principal Act in respect of sales referred to in s. 10(1) of the CST Act. Detailed Analysis: The revision before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajasthan involved a dispute regarding the rectification of an assessment order under the RST Act for the year 1967-68. The dealer had inter-State sales of Jawar and Bajra amounting to Rs. 1,40,12,359, on which 1% tax was levied. The dealer sought rectification of the assessment order, claiming exemption under s. 10(1) of the CST (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969, stating that no CST was collected on these commodities. The assessing authority rejected the rectification application, citing reasons such as advance tax deposit and a note from the Senior District Manager. The dealer appealed to the Dy. CIT (A-I), Jaipur against this decision. After examining the case, the Dy. CIT (A) found that the dealer did not collect any CST on the sales of Jawar and Bajra during the relevant period. The Dy. CIT (A) concluded that the dealer met the conditions of s. 10(1) of the CST Act for claiming exemption and rectified the mistake in the assessment. The assessing authority challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal. During the hearing, the departmental representative argued that the assessing authority did not grant exemption based on the note from the Senior District Manager, creating an impression of tax inclusion in the prices. However, the representative failed to demonstrate how the Dy. CIT (A)'s decision was erroneous. The dealer contended that all conditions of s. 10(1) of the CST Act were fulfilled, and presented documentary evidence to refute the note's impact. The dealer supported the Dy. CIT (A)'s decision, citing relevant legal precedents. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the provisions of s. 10 of the CST Act, emphasizing that the dealer must prove non-collection of tax under the principal Act for sales referred to in s. 10(1) to claim exemption. The Tribunal concurred with the Dy. CIT (A)'s findings, stating that the dealer satisfied the legal requirements for exemption. Rulings cited by the dealer's counsel supported the Dy. CIT (A)'s decision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the rectification made by the Dy. CIT (A) under s. 17 of the RST Act in conjunction with s. 10(1) of the CST Act, dismissing the revision. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Dy. CIT (A) regarding the exemption from tax liability on inter-State sales of Jawar and Bajra, based on the fulfillment of legal conditions and the absence of tax collection under the principal Act.
|
