|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 223 Records
-
1983 (2) TMI 269
Issues:
- Levy of penalty for non-disclosure of turnover by the assessees.
- Applicability of section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
- Interpretation of best judgment assessment provisions under section 12(2).
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved the issue of the levy of penalty on the assessees for non-disclosure of turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessees, who were manufacturers and dealers in bricks, failed to register themselves as dealers under the Act from April 1, 1965. The assessing authority initiated best judgment assessments based on information about brick supply to a school and non-production of accounts by the assessees. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalty, citing wilful non-disclosure of turnover under section 12(3) of the Act due to the assessees' failure to produce accounts or file returns. The assessees appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which overturned the penalty, referencing previous court decisions. The State challenged this decision, arguing that the penalty was justified.
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, emphasizing the requirement for dealers to submit annual returns and the authority of the assessing officer to conduct best judgment assessments under section 12(2) in case of non-compliance. Section 12(3) allows for the levy of penalties in such situations, not exceeding one and a half times the tax due on undisclosed turnover or assessed tax in the absence of a return. The Court highlighted the importance of timely and accurate submission of returns to avoid best judgment assessments and penalties.
Regarding the applicability of previous court decisions cited by the Appellate Tribunal, the Court distinguished the facts of those cases from the present matter. In the referenced cases, returns were submitted before assessments, leading to different outcomes regarding penalty imposition. The Court concluded that the circumstances of the present case justified the application of section 12(3) and upheld the levy of penalties by the assessing authority. Consequently, the Court allowed the tax revision cases, setting aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and affirming the penalty imposition on the assessees for non-disclosure of turnover and non-compliance with registration and filing requirements under the Act.
-
1983 (2) TMI 268
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of entry 19 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding whether 'sandalwood' is a perfume.
2. Interpretation of entry 19 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding whether 'sandalwood oil' is a perfume.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether 'sandalwood' is a perfume within the meaning of entry 19 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The respondents, M/s. Gordhandas Tokersey, contended that sandalwood should fall under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. The Commissioner of Sales Tax initially held that sandalwood was a perfume under entry 19. The Tribunal, however, concluded that sandalwood was not covered by entry 19 and should fall under the residuary entry 22. The High Court examined the dictionary definition of "perfume" and applied the rule of noscitur a sociis, determining that "perfumes" in entry 19 must be construed in conjunction with cosmetics and depilatories, referring to articles used in personal toilet. The court found no evidence that sandalwood is used or known in the trade as a perfume. Therefore, it concluded that sandalwood is not a perfume within the meaning of entry 19.
Issue 2: Whether 'sandalwood oil' is a perfume within the meaning of entry 19 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The respondents argued that sandalwood oil should also fall under the residuary entry 22. The Commissioner of Sales Tax initially held that sandalwood oil was a perfume under entry 19. The Tribunal concluded that sandalwood oil was not covered by entry 19 and should fall under the residuary entry 22. The High Court considered the use of sandalwood oil as a fixative in the preparation of perfumes and its use in ayurvedic medicinal preparations. The court noted that sandalwood oil is not used in personal toilet or for beautification of the body as perfumes. Thus, it concluded that sandalwood oil is not a perfume within the meaning of entry 19.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department. The court held that neither sandalwood nor sandalwood oil are covered by entry 19 of Schedule E of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of these references, fixed at Rs. 300.
-
1983 (2) TMI 267
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of imposing sales tax on the total price of beer and bottle.
2. Whether the deposit for bottles constitutes the sale price.
3. Classification of beer as Indian-made foreign liquor.
4. Applicable tax rate on the sale of bottles.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Imposing Sales Tax on the Total Price of Beer and Bottle:
The court examined whether sales tax could be levied on the total price of beer and bottles as bottled beer under Item 22 of the First Schedule to the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964. The court found that Item 22 pertains to "Foreign liquor and Indian-made foreign liquor" and does not mention bottled beer. The contract between the petitioners and wholesalers indicated separate sales and billing for beer and bottles. Therefore, assessing sales tax on the total price of beer and bottles was deemed improper and illegal.
2. Whether the Deposit for Bottles Constitutes the Sale Price:
The court addressed whether the deposit taken for bottles was actually the sale price, thus subject to sales tax. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which established that the nature of the transaction should be examined. The court found that the agreement between the petitioners and wholesalers did not obligate the return of bottles nor set a return time. The deposit was considered the price of the bottles, making the transaction a sale of bottles liable for sales tax under section 7(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Classification of Beer as Indian-made Foreign Liquor:
The court considered whether beer could be classified as "Indian-made foreign liquor" under Item 22 of the First Schedule to the Act. Although the Sales Tax Act did not define the term, the Goa, Daman and Diu Excise Duty Act defined it to include beer. The court concluded that beer, being a liquor of foreign origin and lower alcohol percentage, could be classified as Indian-made foreign liquor under Item 22.
4. Applicable Tax Rate on the Sale of Bottles:
The court determined that the sale of bottles should be taxed under section 7(1)(c) of the Sales Tax Act. The petitioners were liable to pay sales tax only on the unrefunded amount of the deposit. The petitioners were required to provide evidence from their books of account to the Sales Tax Officer regarding the unrefunded amount.
Conclusion:
- Question (1): Affirmative.
- Question (3) (as reframed): Negative.
- Question (6): Sale of bottles liable to tax under section 7(1)(c), with tax payable on unrefunded amounts.
- Question (8): Affirmative.
The court did not find it necessary to answer the remaining questions. No order as to costs was made, and an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected.
-
1983 (2) TMI 266
Issues:
1. Applicability of penalty under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Interpretation of section 12(4) in relation to incorrect returns and correct accounts.
3. Consideration of penalty under sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 12 simultaneously.
4. Analysis of the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 12 and the non obstante clause in sub-section (4).
Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court of Madras involved a revision against the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing authority had determined a higher taxable turnover than what was initially returned by the assessee. The penalty was imposed for non-disclosure of turnover in the A-2 returns, even though it was present in the accounts, leading to a discrepancy. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty, albeit reducing the amount from the original levy.
The main contention raised was whether section 12(5) could be invoked when the returned turnover was not accepted by the assessing authority. The Court analyzed the application of section 12(4), which allows assessment based on correct accounts when the return is found to be incorrect or incomplete. In this case, since the assessing authority deemed the accounts to be correct and the return incorrect, section 12(4) was applicable, leading to the imposition of penalty under section 12(5)(iii).
The Court also clarified that section 12(4) operates in situations where there is a discrepancy between incorrect or incomplete returns and correct accounts. The proviso to section 12(5) was highlighted, indicating that penalties can be levied under both sub-sections (3) and (5) if warranted by the facts. Additionally, the significance of the non obstante clause in section 12(4) was emphasized, supporting the Tribunal's decision.
Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation and dismissed the tax revision case, affirming the imposition of the penalty under section 12(5) based on the correct application of the relevant provisions of the Act.
-
1983 (2) TMI 265
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Tribunal to refuse enhancement of turnover.
2. Interpretation of Section 38(5) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
3. Applicability of Section 19(1) and Section 39(2) for reopening assessments.
4. Examination of relevant case law and judicial precedents.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Tribunal to Refuse Enhancement of Turnover:
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was competent in refusing to consider the question of enhancement of turnover by Rs. 95,795 under Section 38(5) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act on the application made by the Commissioner, Sales Tax. The Tribunal had rejected the revenue's application without addressing its merits, citing that provisions in Section 19(1) and Section 39(2) allowed the revenue to reopen the assessment, and considering the application would deprive the assessee of the remedy of appeal.
2. Interpretation of Section 38(5) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958:
The court examined Section 38(5) which grants the appellate authority the power to "confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or the penalty or both" in an appeal filed by the assessee. The court emphasized that this power is unrestricted and subject only to the prescribed procedure and further inquiry as deemed necessary. Rule 60 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, requires a notice in Form XXVIII to the person likely to be affected adversely before passing any order enhancing the assessment.
3. Applicability of Section 19(1) and Section 39(2) for Reopening Assessments:
The court acknowledged that the Commissioner of Sales Tax has the power to reopen assessments under Section 19(1) and to initiate suo motu revision under Section 39(2). However, the court held that the availability of these powers does not exclude the additional remedy of invoking the appellate authority's power under Section 38(5) to enhance the assessment in an appeal filed by the assessee.
4. Examination of Relevant Case Law and Judicial Precedents:
The court referred to several decisions to support its interpretation:
- State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores: Distinguished on the basis that the Kerala Act provided for appeals and cross-objections by the revenue, which was not the case under the M.P. Act.
- Madras High Court Decisions: In *V. Krishnappa Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu* and *Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Panayappan Leather Industries*, the Madras High Court upheld the power of the appellate authority to enhance assessments in the absence of a right of appeal or cross-objection by the revenue.
- Mohanlal Hargovinddas (Firm) v. State of Madhya Pradesh: Supported the view that the appellate authority has the power to enhance assessments in the assessee's appeal.
- Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Mohanlal Harprasad: Reiterated that the appellate authority must decide on the enhancement of tax even if the assessee withdraws the appeal.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to consider the question of enhancement of tax under Section 38(5) of the Act. It held that the appellate authority has the power to enhance the assessment in an appeal filed by the assessee, subject to the prescribed procedure and reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, indicating that the Tribunal should have considered the application for enhancement. No order as to costs was made.
-
1983 (2) TMI 264
Issues:
Interpretation of sale price for taxation purposes based on inclusion or exclusion of freight charges.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the determination of the sale price for taxation purposes, specifically whether freight charges should be included in the sale price or not. The assessees, a firm manufacturing paints and varnishes, contested the inclusion of freight charges in the turnover for interState sales. The Sales Tax Officer held that freight charges formed part of the sale price, leading to taxation. The assessees appealed the decision, eventually reaching the Tribunal.
Issue 2: The Tribunal considered the terms and conditions of the sale contracts between the assessees and buyers. The assessees presented an affidavit stating the practice of taking orders through sales agents and relied on a specific sale order as illustrative of the terms during the assessment period. The sale orders indicated that the price charged by the assessees was inclusive of freight up to the place of destination, with buyers required to pay additional charges like railway freight.
Issue 3: The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, regarding the definition of "sale price." The Act specifies that if freight is separately charged, it does not form part of the sale price. The Supreme Court's interpretation emphasized that if the price covers all costs, charges, and expenses, including freight, then that amount represents the sale price for taxation purposes.
Issue 4: Referring to a previous judgment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Court highlighted the necessity of a contractual obligation between the seller and buyer for separately charging freight. In this case, the absence of such an obligation indicated that the price quoted by the assessees was inclusive of freight, and buyers were not liable to pay freight separately.
Issue 5: The Court rejected the argument that passing of risk in the goods to the buyer at the time of payment of freight would indicate separate charging of freight. The terms of the contract, as evidenced by the order form and invoice, demonstrated that the price quoted by the assessees included freight, with buyers paying freight on behalf of the sellers.
Conclusion: Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the department, affirming that the assessees could not deduct the amount of freight from the sale price charged, as there was no agreement to charge freight separately. The decision was based on the contractual terms, which indicated that the price quoted by the assessees was a lump sum inclusive of freight.
-
1983 (2) TMI 263
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Books of Account
2. Validity of Survey Findings
3. Assessment of Taxable Turnover
4. Adequacy of Tribunal's Relief
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rejection of Books of Account:
The primary issue was whether the books of account could be rejected solely based on the absence of entries for transactions found in loose papers during a survey. The Court observed that the purpose of a survey is to check the credibility of the accounts maintained by a dealer. The absence of entries must be considered in the context of the totality of circumstances, including the time of the survey and when the transactions occurred.
The Court referred to previous cases such as *Bishambar Singh v. Commissioner of Sales Tax*, where it was held that the absence of entries could not lead to the rejection of books if the dealer was not required to maintain a record. However, this view was not accepted by the Supreme Court, which emphasized the necessity of making entries for transactions.
2. Validity of Survey Findings:
The Court noted that the assessing authority found that the dealer's explanation for the absence of entries was not credible. The Court emphasized that the absence of entries at the time of the survey could indicate an intention to suppress transactions, especially if the transactions occurred earlier in the day and were not recorded by the time of the survey.
The Court discussed various precedents, including *Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Murli Dhar Shyam Saran* and *Tarang Radio Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax*, where the absence of entries led to the rejection of accounts. The Court concluded that no inflexible rule could be laid down, and each case must be decided based on its specific circumstances.
3. Assessment of Taxable Turnover:
The assessing authority rejected the books of account and determined the taxable turnover by the best of judgment, adding significant amounts to the taxable purchases and sales. The dealer's appeals to the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Tribunal resulted in some reductions but did not secure acceptance of the accounts.
The Court found that the assessing authority had cogent reasons for not accepting the dealer's explanation, noting that even the subsequently made entries did not contain the full record of transactions. The Tribunal's decision to confine the enhancement to specific amounts was deemed reasonable.
4. Adequacy of Tribunal's Relief:
The dealer argued that the Tribunal's relief was inadequate. However, the Court held that the Tribunal had provided adequate relief considering the circumstances. The estimate of turnover made by the Tribunal was found to be reasonable and free from manifest error.
Conclusion:
The revision was dismissed, with the Court finding no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The rejection of the dealer's books of account and the assessment of taxable turnover were upheld, and no order as to costs was made.
-
1983 (2) TMI 262
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled that distilled water sold in vials by a dealer in medicines falls under entry 37 of the Sales Tax Act as it is an integral component of medicines. The decision was based on the nature of distilled water and its use in medicines. The Court cited similar rulings from the Calcutta and Madras High Courts to support their decision. The tax revision case was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1983 (2) TMI 261
Issues:
Assessment validity and penalty levy under sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for turnover of unserviceable cranes sold by a building contractor.
Assessment Validity:
The assessee, a building contractor, challenged the assessment and penalty for the turnover of unserviceable cranes sold during the assessment years. The Supreme Court's principle in Burmah Shell case was cited to argue that the turnovers should not be taxable as they were not part of the regular business. However, the court held that since the assessee was engaged in construction activity in the state and the sales were incidental to its main business, the turnovers were liable for tax. The absence of evidence regarding the purchase location of the cranes did not exempt the assessee from tax liability.
Penalty Levy:
The assessee contended that the assessment was not a best judgment assessment as it was based on figures provided by the assessee and not a return. The court clarified that the absence of a return necessitated a best judgment assessment under section 12(2), making the penalty under section 12(3) applicable. The contention that the non-submission of the return was due to a bona fide mistake of law was rejected, as the failure to submit the return, even if unintentional, still constituted a wilful act. The Tribunal reduced the penalty due to extenuating circumstances but upheld its imposition. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the extenuating circumstances did not absolve the assessee from penalty liability.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the tax revision cases, upholding the assessment validity and penalty levy under sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the Act. The judgment highlighted that the absence of a return necessitated a best judgment assessment, and even unintentional non-submission of the return constituted a wilful failure, justifying the penalty imposition. The extenuating circumstances cited were deemed insufficient to negate the penalty liability, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
-
1983 (2) TMI 260
Issues:
1. Whether the cost of freight should be included in the sale price for tax purposes.
2. Whether the estimated price of containers used for packing goods should be included in the taxable turnover.
3. Whether the penalty imposed under section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was justified.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around whether the cost of freight should be considered part of the sale price for tax assessment. The Court analyzed the terms of the contract and observed that the delivery of goods was completed when they were handed over to the carrier, and the freight was deducted from the price in the bills. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the freight paid by the buyers and deducted by the assessee should not be deemed part of the sale price. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to include the cost of freight in the turnover was deemed incorrect, and the claim for deduction was allowed.
Issue 2:
The second issue concerns the inclusion of the estimated price of containers, such as tins and gunny bags, in the taxable turnover. The Court noted that there was no explicit contract for the sale of these containers and cited previous judgments emphasizing the need for the revenue to prove the liability for tax on such items. Given the insignificance of the packing material's price compared to the goods sold, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in including the estimated value of containers in the taxable turnover. The decision was made in favor of the assessee.
Issue 3:
The final issue pertains to the penalty imposed under section 43(1) of the Act. The assessee argued against the imposition of the penalty, claiming no mens rea or deliberate concealment of turnover. However, the Tribunal found no omission due to legal advice or genuine belief. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to impose the penalty, as there was no justification for the assessee's actions. The answer to this issue was in favor of the Tribunal, affirming the penalty.
In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on the first two issues regarding the cost of freight and the estimated price of containers in the taxable turnover. However, the penalty imposed under section 43(1) of the Act was upheld. The reference was answered accordingly, with each party bearing their own costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 259
Issues:
Challenge to reassessment notices under Central Sales Tax Act and Punjab General Sales Tax Act for sale of rice bran oil in inter-State trade and commerce.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a firm selling rice bran oil in inter-State trade, filed a writ petition seeking to quash reassessment notices issued by the Assessing Authority under the Central Sales Tax Act and Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner contended that no new information justifying reassessment had come to light after the initial assessment for the years 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1980-81. The Assessing Authority relied on a letter stating that rice bran oil was considered inedible and should be taxed at 4% instead of the 1% rate previously applied to edible oils. The petitioner argued that the letter did not provide factual information on their sales and that the opinion regarding the inedibility of rice bran oil was formed after the assessments. The court found that there was no new material indicating under-assessment, rendering the reassessment notices illegal and without jurisdiction.
The court also addressed the question of whether rice bran oil was edible or inedible, noting the lack of detailed information on the constituents of the oil in the case file. The court emphasized that without a clear understanding of which components rendered the oil inedible, a conclusive determination could not be made. However, due to the primary finding on the lack of new material for reassessment, the court did not delve further into this issue.
Furthermore, the court considered the authority of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to issue the letter guiding the Assessing Authorities on the tax treatment of rice bran oil. Despite reservations raised by the petitioner's counsel, the court deemed it unnecessary to rule on this matter in light of the main contention regarding the validity of the reassessment notices. The court concluded by allowing the writ petition, quashing the impugned notices dated 24th February, 1982, without imposing any costs on the petitioner.
-
1983 (2) TMI 258
Issues:
1. Whether the State rule has been superseded by the Central rule.
2. Compliance with the requirements of rule 5A of the State Rules.
3. Interpretation of Section 6A and burden of proof in case of transfer of goods.
4. Power of the Central Government and State Government to prescribe particulars for declarations under the Act.
5. Allegation of implied repeal of State rule 5A by Central rule 12.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed exemption under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act but was denied as he failed to furnish details under rule 5A of the State Rules. The petitioner argued that the State rule had been superseded by the Central rule. The court found no justification in this contention, stating that both the Central and State Governments had the power to prescribe particulars for declarations. The petitioner's failure to comply with the State rule did not imply its repeal by the Central rule, and the challenge against the assessment orders failed.
2. Rule 5A of the State Rules required specific details to be maintained by the petitioner for claiming exemption under section 6A. The petitioner contended that compliance with rule 12 of the Central Rules was sufficient. The court held that the State and Central rules were not inconsistent, and the petitioner was obligated to adhere to both sets of requirements. The contention that the State rule was unnecessary or superseded by the Central rule was dismissed.
3. Section 6A places the burden of proof on the dealer to show that the movement of goods occurred other than by way of sale to qualify for exemption. The petitioner argued that the goods were sent to another state for sale by an agent, not through inter-State trade. The impugned orders treated the movement as an inter-State sale due to the petitioner's failure to provide required details under rule 5A of the State Rules.
4. The court analyzed the powers of the Central and State Governments to prescribe particulars for declarations under the Act. While the Central Government could prescribe details for any declaration under the Act, the State Government's power was limited to declarations under specific sections. The court found no inconsistency between the rules made by both authorities and upheld the requirement for the petitioner to furnish details under rule 5A of the State Rules.
5. The petitioner alleged that Central rule 12 had impliedly repealed State rule 5A, as compliance with the Central rule should suffice. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the simultaneous conferment of power on both authorities allowed for the State rule to coexist with the Central rule. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any conflict between the rules, leading to the dismissal of the challenge against the assessment orders.
-
1983 (2) TMI 257
Issues involved: Seizure of goods u/s 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act without proper authority and justification.
Summary:
The judgment of the Court addressed the seizure of goods under section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act without proper authority and justification. The case involved a consignment of Indian-made foreign liquor being transported from Rampur to Bhopal, intercepted at a check post. The Sales Tax Officer issued a show cause notice alleging underinvoicing and seized the goods. The petitioners contended that the consignment was in transit for an inter-State sale, and the seizure was unjustified. The Court granted an interim order for the release of the goods and later ruled in favor of the petitioners.
The petitioners argued that the seizure of goods was unauthorized, even though the goods were released due to a court order. The relevant provision, section 13-A of the Act, allows seizure only if goods cannot be traced to a bona fide dealer or are not properly accounted for. Since the notice only alleged underinvoicing in an intra-State sale, the seizure lacked legal basis. The respondents failed to provide additional grounds justifying the seizure.
The Court emphasized that the power to seize goods under section 13-A is limited to specific circumstances, which were not met in this case. The respondents claimed the petitioners were evading tax through underinvoicing, but this issue was deemed separate from the legality of the seizure. As the seizure lacked jurisdiction, any penalty proceedings under section 13-A were unwarranted. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the proceedings and awarding costs to them.
In conclusion, the Court found the seizure of goods without proper authority and justification under section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to be unlawful. The petitioners were granted relief, and the proceedings initiated based on the show cause notice were quashed.
-
1983 (2) TMI 256
Issues involved: Determination of taxable turnover for a press u/s 28 of the Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74. Whether turnover from transactions involving supply of paper and printing work constitutes sales of finished products or works contract.
Summary:
The assessee, a press, returned a taxable turnover for the assessment year 1973-74, which was determined higher by the assessing authority. The dispute arose regarding transactions where the assessee supplied paper and did the printing work. The assessing authority, appellate authority, and Tribunal considered this turnover as sales of finished products, leading to a tax liability. The assessee contended that the transactions should be viewed as works contracts, emphasizing the intention of the parties and the substance of the contract.
The Tribunal held the transactions as indivisible sales of finished products based on the supply of paper and printing work. The Court analyzed previous decisions but found them not universally applicable. Emphasizing the intention of the parties, it was noted that the finished products supplied by the assessee were not commercially marketable to others, supporting the view of two separate contracts for paper sale and labor supply. The Court referred to a decision holding such transactions as works contracts.
Citing precedents, including a Kerala High Court decision, the Court concluded that the disputed turnover should be treated as a works contract, not sales of finished products. The tax case was allowed, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and lower authorities, with no costs imposed.
-
1983 (2) TMI 255
MPORT AND EXPORT — AGENT — SALE IN THE COURSE OF IMPORT — SALE OUTSIDE STATE — CONTRACT OF ASSESSEE WITH STC, OF WHICH PEC WAS A WING, TO IMPORT, STOCK AND SELL MACHINES TO ACTUAL USERS ONLY — ORDERS PLACED WITH FOREIGN SELLER BY ASSESSEE AFTER OBTAINING ORDERS FROM LOCAL CUSTOMERS — PEC RESERVING RIGHT TO NAME ACTUAL USERS TO WHOM MACHINES TO BE SOLD — IMPORT LICENCE IN NAME OF PEC — IMPORTATION OF GOODS BY ASSESSEE ON BASIS OF ACTUAL USERS ORDERS AND NOT ON ACTUAL USER'S LICENCE HELD BY LOCAL CUSTOMERS — INVOICE RAISED IN NAME OF ASSESSEE BY FOREIGN SELLER.
-
1983 (2) TMI 254
Deduction of the value of goods returned by the purchasers during the assessment year 1972-73 under rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, even though the said goods had been sold during the assessment year 1971-72 challenged
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As such deduction can be claimed not in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which the goods were returned but in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were sold allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of assessment for the year 1972-73 shall be modified accordingly. Also direct the department to modify the assessment for the year 1971-72 and to refund to the assessee excess tax, if any, paid during that year.
-
1983 (2) TMI 253
Deduction of the value of goods returned by the purchasers during the assessment year 1972-73 under rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, even though the said goods had been sold during the assessment year 1971-72 challenged
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As such deduction can be claimed not in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which the goods were returned but in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were sold allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of assessment for the year 1971-72 shall be modified accordingly. Also direct the department to modify the assessment for the year 1970-71 and to refund to the assessee excess tax, if any, paid during that year.
-
1983 (2) TMI 252
Deduction of the value of goods returned by the purchasers during the assessment year 1972-73 under rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, even though the said goods had been sold during the assessment year 1971-72 challenged
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As such deduction can be claimed not in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which the goods were returned but in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were sold allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of assessment for the year 1972-73 shall be modified accordingly. Also direct the department to modify the assessment for the year 1971-72 and to refund to the assessee excess tax, if any, paid during that year.
-
1983 (2) TMI 251
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under rule 9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 from payment of sales tax on the turnover relating to "service discount"?
Whether the value of goods returned by the purchasers could be deducted under rule 9(b)(i) of the Rules from the total turnover of the year of assessment in which the goods were actually returned when they had been sold in the previous assessment year?
Held that:- The appeal is dismissed in so far as the first question is concerned. The appeal is allowed in so far as the second question is concerned.
-
1983 (2) TMI 243
Whether the levy of additional tax under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975 (Orissa Act 24 of 1975) as amended by the Orissa Additional Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979 ("the amending Act") is a single point levy or a multi-point levy?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Any dealer who is not liable to pay tax under the principal Act either by reason of his not having sufficient gross turnover or by reason of exemption given under section 7 of the principal Act is not liable to pay additional tax under the Act. If a dealer is exempted by the State Government under the second proviso to section 3(1) of the Act he is also not liable to pay the additional tax under the Act.The turnover in respect of goods whose sales or purchases are not taxable under the principal Act in the hands of any dealer by reason of section 8 of the principal Act is not liable to the payment of additional sales tax under the Act. The turnover in respect of sales and purchases of declared goods is not taxable under the Act by reason of the first proviso to section 3(1) of the Act. Any other turnover which is exempted by the State Government under the second proviso to section 3(1) of the Act is also not taxable under the Act. The levy of the additional tax on the gross turnover of a dealer under section 3 of the Act is subject to these conclusions.
........
|
9911796707
