9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 2, sent a notice in form S.T. XIV purported to have been issued under section 4-B of the Act dated 20th July, 1971, to the petitioner by registered post to appear before him at Yamuna Nagar on 3rd August, 1971, with complete account for the purchase of scrap. A copy of the notice is attached with the petition as annexure A-1. The petitioner's representative appeared before respondent No. 2 on 3rd August, 1971, and the petitioner was asked to deposit the tax at 3 per cent on all the iron scrap so purchased at Jagadhri. He also issued a memo for assessment refixing the case on 7th September, 1971. It is alleged in the petition that in the meantime, the Assessing Authority was transferred. The petitioner started taking delivery of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents by Shri H.B. Gandhi, Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar. So far as the question that the petitioner is not a dealer, I am of the opinion that this is a question of fact and cannot be gone into in writ proceedings. The respondents in their reply to sub-para (i) of para 15(a) have averred that the petitioner is a dealer as defined in section 2(d) of the Act and is liable to pay tax under section 4-B of the Act on the purchases made by him in the State of Haryana from an unregistered dealer. The petitioner has not filed any counter-affidavit to this averment in the reply. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner is a "dealer". So far as the charging of tax levied on the petitioner under section 4-B is concerned, it was amended, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of Haryana and this tax is payable only if the goods had been exported out of Haryana and tax on the purchase of goods will not be payable, if the goods are sold in the State of Haryana or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. There is another impediment in the way of the petitioner that he failed to avail of the remedies of appeals available to him under the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file the appeal although that remedy was available under the Act. He could file an appeal to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and a second appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal. In such a situation where the machinery provided under the Act is not availed of, the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., Madhya Pradesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
