9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant period and was the Tribunal justified in maintaining the disallowance of claims of Rs. 5, 21,075.50 made by the applicant out of turnover determined under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of sales made to M/s. Laxmi Trading Company, Amritsar, against forms E (application dated 24th April, 1971, filed by the applicant is at annexure GG)?" 2.. The facts giving rise to the reference may be briefly noticed. The applicant is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The firm is carrying on the business of vanaspati ghee manufactured by it at Aligarh (U.P.). The present reference relates to the assessment year 1966-67. While the assessment case of the applicant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , namely, that the cancellation of the registration certificate had at no time been notified in the official Gazette, as required under rule 12(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949, nor had the Amritsar firm surrendered the registration certificate to the Assessing Authority, as required under rule 14 of the said Rules. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, however, repelled the above objections and declined to allow the deduction primarily on the ground that the writ petition in which the Amritsar firm had obtained the stay order was ultimately dismissed. A review application before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, however, succeeded only in regard to the sales made to the Ludhiana firm and not to the Amritsar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in view of the stay order. The mere fact that the writ petition of the Amritsar firm was ultimately dismissed, would not incur liability upon the petitioner for recovery of sales tax on sales made to the Amritsar firm during the pendency of the stay order. It is not a case where the dispute is only between the Amritsar firm and the sales tax authorities, but the interest of a third party, namely, the petitionerfirm has also come into being. We have, thus, no hesitation in holding that on account of the issuance of the stay order by this Court in favour of the Amritsar firm, the sales made by the petitioner-firm to the Amritsar-firm on the basis of the registration certificate of the latter, are not chargeable to sales tax. This part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
