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

TMI Blog

Home

1975 (12) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chalan No. 606/59-73. There was also a Delivery Note in Form X under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. The Check Post Officer however found that the consignee was not a sales tax payer within the State. He would therefore not permit the movement of the goods unless the tax was paid thereon. He demanded registration for Rs. 10 and advance payment of tax and surcharge of Rs. 3,045 and Rs. 152 respectively totalling to Rs. 3,197. Since the appellant was in a hurry to clear the goods he paid the amount. Since the amount was actually paid on behalf of Tvl. Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Minerals, the appeal has been filed by them disputing the validity of the levy. 3. Thiru C. Venkatraman, the learned counsel argued that 9 drums of chemic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence on the ground that there was no sale bill issued. He was of the view that Form X was not worth the paper on which it was written. The subsequent sale document etc., which were produced before him were also dismissed as lacking in "legal force". He claimed that the Check Post Officer had the power to demand the tax under s. 42(3)(b)(ii). 4. The learned counsel argued that the AAC was incorrect as the conditions for collection of tax under s. 42(3)(b)(ii) were not satisfied. The learned State Representative on the other hand claimed that under s. 42, all that we are concerned in that there is a prima facie case for collection of advance of tax. If there was such a prima facie case he claimed that the collection of advance tax itself wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he concerned officer pleaded inability to refund the amount because the dealer was not doing business in his jurisdiction. It was state that the payment was made by Venkateswara Pesticides and Allied Chemicals Ltd., while the dealer in the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority was Tvl. Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Minerals. The learned State Representative contended that the refund if any will be paid on a proper application. 5. We have carefully considered the records as well as the arguments. The issue has two-fold aspects. The first question is whether the payment was prima facie correct. Secondly, even if it was correctly made, such demand has to be ordinarily to be adjusted against the regular assessment since what is obtained is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nment namely Tvl. Venkateswara Agro Chemicals and Minerals were summoned in this connection. A check of their accounts revealed that they had correctly accounted for the receipt of the consignment in question. The above goods were received by them for purpose of formulation of presticides and insecticides. As the dealers had not used the above consignment in their manufacture the above consignment is still lying idle in the factory premises of Tvl. Venkatesware Agro Chemicals and Minerals at No. 6/303, T. II Road, Madras-81". From the above it is clear that there has been no sale involved and that the identity of the consignor and the consignee are clearly established. It is also clear that the credit has since been transferred from Puzha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ignor and consignee were established we should have though that there was no material for presuming "evasion of tax" and hence the condition for detention was not satisfied unless the Assessing Authorities had some material for disbelieving the version presented to him. In fact, there is no finding in the order to the effect that the check post was satisfied that the detention was necessary with a view to prevent evasion of tax payable in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried. In absence of such a finding, which is mandatory, the detention as well as consequential collection of tax cannot be legal. There was also no material for such a finding, even if a finding were to be imputed to the order. Hence the collection of tax aga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates