9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il by issuing Form 'C' declaring that the goods were for the purpose of manufacturing or processing of goods for sale in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Instead of using them for the aforesaid purpose, it used the material in the execution of works contract, namely, printing the beedi labels of the sister concern, Bharath Beedi Works, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 10A. On 11-1-1971, the Additional Commercial STO, levied penalties of Rs. 4,778 for the assessment year 1966-67, Rs. 18,743 for the assessment year 1967-68, Rs. 16,245 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 76,461 for the assessment year 1969-70 holding that the assessee had no reasonable excuse for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -cum-Excise Taxation Officer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1610, the penal character of user of Form 'C' was wiped out, inasmuch as the user of goods for the purpose of own manufacture without sale was held to be sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 8(3)(b). In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the learned representative urged that the authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim made by the assessee. He further submitted that the claim of the assessee was also to be allowed on the ground of commercial expediency under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 4. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power ;" The scope and meaning of the expression 'for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale' came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the light of differring judgments of the various High Courts in the case of East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Applying a well settled rule of interpretation according to plain language, the Supreme Court noticing the significance of the qualifying words 'by him' following the words 'for resale' in the first sub-clause and the absence thereof in the second sub-clause after the words 'for sale', held that the resale contemplated was by the registered dealer and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
