9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Act., The turnover for 1973-74 was determined at Rs. 8,77,477. The tax assessed was Rs. 26,434. Since the dealer did not pay tax alongwith the returns penalty of Rs. 4,000 was imposed under s. 17(3) of the State Act. For the year 1974-75 the turnover assessed to purchase tax was Rs. 11,00,388. The tax assessed was Rs. 33,244. The tax payable alongwith the first return was credited late. Hence penalty of Rs. 600 was imposed under s. 17(3) of the State Act. First appeal against the order of assessment was rejected by the Addl. AAC. The assessment and penalty were maintained. Hence the second appeal. 3. Appellant s first contention is that hides and skins are declared goods under s. 14 of the Central ST Act (hereinafter called the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied at more than one stage. The argument of learned counsel for appellant was that the levy on purchase tax was illegal and should be set aside. There is no substance in this contention. Appellant has not been able to show how tax has been levied at more than one stage under the State Act. Since hides and skins have been purchased from unregistered declares and have been despatched outside the State the levy of purchase tax is in accordance with the provision under s. 7(1) of the State Act. 4. Appellant s next contention is that penalty under s. 17(3) of the State Act was uncalled for. It was argued that the dealer did not consider himself liable to purchase tax on the purchase. Accordingly, he had written to STO that there was no l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd there was no ambiguity regarding the liability of the purchasers for the purchase tax. The question of liability to purchase tax had already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Dixit (24 STC 343) in year 1969 and M.P. High Court had also held in 1971 in Gopaldas vs. Sales-tax Officer 311 STC 575 (MP) that it was not correct to say that the stage at which tax became exigible on declared on goods, was not prescribed by the state Act. 5. Appellant s contention must be accepted. It is seen that at the very first stage he had made it clear to the STO that no tax was leviable on these purchases. If the STO, thereafter considered that tax was leviable, it was for him to have asked appellant to deposit the tax. In fact this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
