9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that forfeiture of Rs. 1,231.76 collected by the respondent was not justified?" The facts which have given rise to this reference are that the respondentcompany which is a registered dealer also holds a recognition under section 22 of the said Act. During the period 1st April, 1965, to 31st March, 1966, the respondents purchased certain goods and in respect of such purchase gave certificates in form 15 to their vendors. As a result of this, their vendors did not become liable to pay sales tax to the Government and consequently did not recover any amount by way of tax from the respondent-company. The goods purchased by furnishing certificate in form 15 are required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. The respondent-company went in second appeal to the Tribunal. At the hearing of the said second appeal, the two Members of the Bench differed and the appeal was placed before the Special Bench which heard the said appeal along with another appeal which had also been directed to be placed before it. What the Special Bench held was that the excess amount collected by way of tax contemplated by section 46(2) could not apply to each distinct and separate transaction and that the proper mode of determining the applicability of the said provision was to find out the aggregate amount collected by a registered dealer by way of tax during the particular year and to ascertain whether it exceeded the amount of tax payable by the dealer on his turno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the intention of the legislature in enacting section 46." In that case the court held that the intention of the legislature was to prohibit collection of tax on every transaction of sale or purchase which was not exigible to tax. It would, therefore, follow that the order of remand made by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. In the present case, however, as the statement of the case clearly shows the respondent-company had become liable to pay purchase tax to the Government when it sold the goods or used them in contravention of the declarations made by it in the certificates issued by it in form 15. The amounts collected by it by way of tax was, as found by the Tribunal, equivalent to the amount of purchase tax which had become pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
