9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for such sales in Delhi, the petitioner's branch was assessed to the Delhi sales tax. Under the Punjab Act, return was filed by the petitioner for the year 1960-61 and on 20th of January, 1962, the Assessing Authority passed an assessment order. The petitioner brought it to the notice of the Assessing Authority that out of the manufactured goods, the petitioner had despatched to its branch at Delhi goods worth Rs. 1,09,130-74 nP. during the assessment year. After allowing the deductions of the amount already paid by him, the assessment order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 8-81 nP., which amount was duly deposited. This order was passed by Mr. Vidya Parkash, Assessing Authority, Ludhiana. Subsequently, on 17th of August, 1962, Mr. A.L, Bhatnagar, who succeeded Mr. Vidya Parkash as the Assessing Authority, sent a notice (annexure C) to the petitioner to the following effect: "Whereas, in consequence (of) definite information in my possession, (1) have reason (to) believe that turnover of your business assessable to sales tax for the year ending the 31st of March, 1961, has escaped levy of the appropriate fee, I, therefore, propose to reassess the said turnover that has escaped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has definitely escaped assessment ..... I, therefore, hold that I can reopen the case under section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and this is a definite information which has come in my possession subsequently." He then considered the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and observed as follows: "In the instant case the dealer purchased goods on the strength of his registration certificate, manufactured hosiery goods from it and instead of making sale thereof whether in Punjab or elsewhere he transferred the goods to his branch at Delhi and thereby infringed the specific condition of sale. The transfer of goods by a head office to its branch does not constitute a sale." On this basis, after, calculating the raw material used in the manufacture of the goods, which were sent to Delhi branch, the Assessing Authority assessed Rs. 1,853-60 nP. as tax. Two points have been raised in this petition while impugning the above-mentioned order dated 31st of August, 1962. In the first place, it is urged that under section 11-A the Assessing Authority can reopen a case only if it comes into possession of some "definite information" and that, in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and of the prevailing law and holds that certain sale transactions are not liable to tax ..... he cannot subsequently on the basis of information which was already in his possession and within his knowledge act under section 11-A even though the assessee had escaped assessment. Such a case would be a case of mere change of opinion on the same state of facts and not a case of finding as a result of new information that the dealer has escaped assessment in some respects." As against this, the learned Advocate-General has relied on the interpretation of the word "information" as given by the Supreme Court in Maharaj Kumar v. Income-tax Commissioner[1959] 35 I.T.R. 1; A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 257., where it was held that under section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, the word "information" may relate to information as to facts or "information regarding state of law or a decision on a point of law". This case was considered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanhaiyalal's case(1) at page 622 of the report and was distinguished on facts, and it was observed in paragraph 8 as follows: "It is thus clear that if in fact or in law there is no information which has come into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which these were sold to him, he shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase thereof at the rate of tax leviable on the sale of such goods ....." It may be stated here that by Ordinance No. 2 of 1963, which has now been replaced by a Punjab Act, for the words "or of goods specified in his certificate of registration for the use by him in the manufacture in the State of Punjab of any goods for sale" the words "or of goods specified in his certificate of registration for use by him in the manufacture in Punjab of any goods, ..... for sale in Punjab" have been substituted. According to the amended section, if a manufacturer purchases raw material, the seller of the raw material will not be liable to sales tax if two conditions are satisfied: (1) that the raw material is used in the manufacture of goods in Punjab, and (2) that the manufactured goods are sold in Punjab. If the manufacturer contravenes any one of these two conditions, then of course, the second proviso definitely comes in and he will pay tax at the same rate on the purchases of the raw material made by him as the seller would have been liable if the sale had been made to an unregistered dealer. The learned Advocate-Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "sale" as defined either in section 2(h) of the Punjab Act or in the Central Act. However, we are not really concerned with the view that was taken by the department, and I have mentioned this only to show that even the department did not take the view that the word "sale" meant sale in the State of Punjab. The question then arises, if the goods are transferred by a manufacturer to its branch outside the State of Punjab for sale there, can it be said that the goods manufactured were not for sale? It may be that the Assessing Authority in the State of Punjab for satisfying itself, that the raw material purchased in the State of Punjab has been utilised for the manufacture of goods for sale, may call upon the manufacturer to produce proof of the fact that the goods transferred to its branch at Delhi were, in fact, sold. As has been stated in the petition itself, the petitioner's branch at Delhi is a registered dealer under the Delhi Act and it is further stated that on all the sales of goods transferred to Delhi, sales tax has been paid there. If these facts are correct-and these have not been denied-then it cannot be said that the goods manufactured were not for sale and in this vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
