Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (6) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1) Interpretation of section 8(1)(explanation 1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act 1993 regarding the taxability of sales made by a petitioner.
2) Application of the Supreme Court's decision in civil appeal 6619/2001 to determine tax liability.
3) Review jurisdiction of the Assam Board of Revenue in light of errors apparent on record.

Analysis:
1) The petitioner purchased petroleum products from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and resold them to dealers in Assam, with the sale price exceeding 40% of the price paid to IOC. Sales tax authorities levied tax on the entire sale price as a "first sale," leading to an appeal to the Assam Board of Revenue. The Board initially ruled the sales were not taxable under the Act's explanation 1 of section 8(1). However, a review was sought by the tax department citing a Supreme Court judgment, ultimately resulting in the Board reversing its decision and taxing the sales as first sales.

2) The Supreme Court's decision in civil appeal 6619/2001, involving IOC's sale of petroleum products, clarified the inclusion of surcharge in sale price and tax liability on the price difference. The petitioner argued that this ruling was not relevant to their case, emphasizing the specific conditions under the Assam Sales Tax Act for determining taxability of sales. The court agreed, stating that the Supreme Court's decision did not align with the issues in the present case.

3) The Assam Board of Revenue's review jurisdiction was challenged, focusing on errors apparent on record. The petitioner contended that the Board's decision to tax the sales was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Act's provisions. The court upheld the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the Board's review decision was untenable as it misinterpreted the Act's requirements and erroneously linked it to the Supreme Court's unrelated judgment. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the Board's order and ruling in favor of the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates