9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain reasons, the Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the claim and he added the same to the net wealth in the assessment for 1979-80. In the assessment for 1980-81, the provision made for the same reasons, was Rs. 6,43,499. This was added to the net wealth in the assessment year 1980-81. 3. The assessee has an imported car (Toyota make) in respect of which he claimed exemption under section 5(1)(viii). The Wealth-tax Officer held, for both the years, that the exemption was not admissible. 4. The assessee had received industrial subsidy of Rs. 1,20,407, during the assessment year 1979-80, and Rs. 2,37,291, in the next assessment year, which he claimed to be not includible in the net wealth. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the claim. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, in respect of which a provision had been made in the books of account. There is no dispute that out of the total amount of Rs. 17,06,819, Rs. 10,69,034 related to the provision made for 1978-79 and Rs. 6,37,786 was the purchase tax provision made for the earlier year. Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act had been amended with effect from 1-4-1976, whereby purchases made in the course of and for the purpose of export were exempt from purchase tax. The assessee was purchasing marine products essentially for the purpose of export. According to the revenue, in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Dy. CST, Board of Revenue v. Neroth Oil Mills Co. Ltd. [1949] 49 STC 249 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions have been considered. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and it has been summed up as follows : " The assessee will be entitled to exemption from purchase tax by virtue of section 5(3) of the CST Act only when it is able to show that the assessee had purchased the goods for the purpose of fulfilling the existing contracts for export. Until then it cannot be said that the assessee is not liable to pay purchase tax. In the present case only on 30-6-1983 when the final assessment for the sales tax assessment year 1977-78 was revised, exemption was granted u/s 5(3) of the CST Act in respect of the opening stock of prawns held on 1-4-1977. Till then the liability for purchase tax existed. Under these circumstances, we hold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sales tax assessment made on 23-8-1982. Thus, according to him, the liability would be illusory. 11. It is true that the assessee's claim has been accepted by the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year 1978-79. It is really not necessary to go into the question whether the assessee could seek any assistance by the fact that the notification issued by the Kerala Government dated 29-3-1979 was actually published in the Official Gazette on 3-4-1979 although in passing we may mention the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of S. Ratnam Pillai v. ITO [1984] 9 ITD 376 and S. Ratnam Pillai v. ITO [1987] 20 ITD 578 support the claim of the assessee. But there is some fresh material in this case to reconsider the issue. When the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has to show is that his case is one where there was no liability. By establishing the conditions specified in sec. 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessee demonstrated that there was no liability and this is recognised by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. The assessment, in effect, only shows that there never existed a liability. If the liability crystallised on the relevant valuation date though determined by an assessment subsequently made to the valuation date as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S.N. Bhatt, then, on the same analogy, the non-tax liability (towards purchase tax) determined by the assessing officer would show that there was no real liability as on the relevant valuation dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission made on behalf of the revenue. When the car has been treated as a business asset in the balance sheet, there is no justification to treat the same as a personal asset under sec. 5(1)(viii), WT Act. The authorities below had rightly held it to be a taxable asset. 14. The last ground relates to industrial subsidy received by the assessee which the authorities below have included in the net wealth. This very issue had been considered by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 in WTA No. 98/Coch/84. The fact situation is admittedly the same. Following the reasons given by the Tribunal in the earlier order for 1978-79, we reject the claim of the assessee and uphold the finding of the CWT (A) in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
