9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 11,05,152.01 Subsequent to the assessment relating to another assessee this Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Conduit Pipes for electrical installations which were treated as single point goods initially and were exempted as second sales of the same were really liable to tax as multipoint. The appellant was charged with describing some conduit pipes as electrical sections merely to avail exemption of turnover of Rs. 61,273.32 for asst. yr. 1969-70, Rs. 20,402.80 for asst. yr. 1970-71 and Rs. 32,147.81 for asst. yr. 1971-72 and such turnovers were brought to tax at multi point rate by involving revisional jurisdiction under s. 16 of the act. The appellant in its appeal to AAC contended that the items on which clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore before us in second appeal. 3. Thiru C. Venkataraman, the learned counsel for the appellant claimed that it was the understanding of the trade that conduit pipes for electrical sections were electrical goods. It was on this understanding that Thiruvalargal Wavin India Limited, collected tax at 7 per cent hen applicable to entry 41 of the First Schedule. The appellant paid the tax at this rate. the sellers collected the amount at 7 per cent and deposited that same to the Government. An assessment on them was also made at this rate. It appears however that Thiruvalargal Wavin India Limited, made an attempt to get the lower rate of tax in respect of appeal for asst. yr. 1966-67 and got the decision in its favour. The High Court confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed that he does not claim any tax refund for that year. It was further certified in writing before us that they have no objection to adjust any tax collected in excess from them towards any tax that may be found due from the appellants of the same goods. In other words the contention of Wavin India Limited and the appellant are also consistent in the sense that it is not the intention that Thiruvalargal Wavin India second sales. Thiru C. Venkataraman, the lender counsel claimed that the Department should appreciate the fairness in appellant s case. He further stated that such fairness is not merely a matter of concession on the part of the Government but is also statutory even as held by the High Courts in a number of cases. He cited a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant buyer. For an earlier year, the seller Thiruvalargal Wavin India Limited, got the matter upset by the Tribunal. It is probable, as contended by the leaned counsel, the Tribunal filed to consider the ISI specifications which as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth General Mills Co. Ltd. Air 1963 (SC) 791. "This specification by the Indian Standards Institution furnishes very strong and indeed almost introvertible support for Dr. Nanji s view and the respondent s contention that without deodorisation the oil is not "refined oil" as is known to the consumers and the commercial Community". In the view of the Supreme Court ISI specifications supplied "strong and indeed introvertible su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of cotton which is assessable at the point of last sale in the Sate on single point basis. It was found that the purchaser from the appellant, a non-resident, viz., Alagappa Textile (Cochin) Ltd., was assessed on the same goods as the last purchaser. The High Court observed that this fact would be certainly taken judicial notice of. On this ground alone the High Court cancelled liability on the part of Loyal Textile Mills Limited vs. State of Madras. In other words, on the ground the same goods could not be the subject matter of last purchase in the State for two different dealers. The liability in respect of one was cancelled. As pointed out by the learned counsel the position here in not different. In such case, we would certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een collected in excess in the sellers hands. It is enough for our purpose to say that the sales were treated as sales of electrical goods in the original assessment and they have also been found to have been treated as electrical goods in the hands of the first seller and subjected to tax. The assessment of the first seller has not to be disturbed. There was no material for the revision in the appellant s hands. After all, the original assessment was made with eyes open and consistent with Department s own view adopted both in the case of the appellant and the first seller. Under the circumstances, we doubt very much whether there is jurisdiction on the part of the assessing authority to revise the assessment. Besides, if we are not to acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
