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

1955 (7) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Parur, for obtaining registration under rule 22: "As per Travancore General Sales Tax Act, 1124, Rule 22(1), Porunchu Varieth, proprietor, St. Joseph's Electrical Oil Mills, Parur, pray that I may be registered as a manufacturer of cocoanut oil and cake for this area for 1125, at your earliest convenience" and Exhibit II dated 31st March, 1950, the certificate granted to him: "Certified that Sri Porunchu Varieth, Proprietor, St. Joseph's Electrical Oil Mills, Parur, has been registered as manufacturer of cocoanut oil and cake under rule 22(1) of the Travancore General Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment Rules. This certificate will be valid from 17th November, 1949, (the date of receipt of his application)." 3.. The relevant portion of Exh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... should make the dealer, a person who is 'such manufacturer' as is referred to under rule 20(2). This conten- tion is apparently supported by a ruling of the Madras Sales Tax Tribunal. But it has to be noted that the obligation cast upon a manufacturer under rule 20(3) can be discharged only if he is already registered under rule 20(1). It follows that the manufacturer should get registered under rule 20(1) either within two months of the commencement of the business or within 31st May of the year for which deduction is claimed. In this case the application for registration was made only on 17th November, 1949, and the appellants' attempt to get registration with retrospective effect has failed before the Board of Revenue. The certificate ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... himself points out the absence of any provision to condone the delay in making the application, if he wants to enjoy the benefit of the deduction under rule 22(2) he has but to apply for and take out the registration certificate from the very begin- ning. If he fails to do so, he loses the benefit. As stated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the obligation cast upon a manufac- turer under rule 22(3) can be discharged only if he has already registered under rule 22(1). The certificate was issued only from 17th November, 1949, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the deduction only from that date. There is no provision in the Act or Rules to give retrospective effect to the certificate. In the circumstances, the Appellate Assi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 7 equal to the value of the cocoanut and/or copra or groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted by him into oil and cake provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover. (3) Every such manufacturer shall, not later than the last day of every month, submit a statement to the registering authority furnishing the following particulars in respect of transactions relating to the pre- vious month: (1) the aggregate amount of cocoanut and/or copra, groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him, and the total purchase price; and (ii) the quantity of the cocoanut oil and/or groundnut oil manu- factured, the amount for which it was sold and the amount included in the turnover. ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... registered manu- facturer." In view of this it is impossible to say that any oil manu- factured by a dealer who was unregistered at the time of the manufac- ture is none the less oil manufactured by a registered dealer simply because the dealer chose to obtain a certificate of registration subse- quent to the completion of the manufacture. 9.. The petitioner's counsel drew our attention to The State of Madras, In re(1). In that case the assessee though registered under rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, only on the 3rd March, 1951, was granted the deduction in respect of February, 1951, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The State took up the matter in revision before the High Court of Madras .....

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