9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question for our determination: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the latter part of sub-section (2) of section 46, B.S.T. Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of forfeiture of tax of Rs. 1,347.53 on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiture of the amount of Rs. 1,347.53 unauthorisedly collected by the dealer as tax. The appeal against the assessment order forfeiting Rs. 1,347.53 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. In the second appeal filed before the Tribunal it was contended that the amount directed to be forfeited should have been adjusted towards the amount of total tax found payable by the assessee having regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 46(2) of the said Act is not correct in view of the decision of this Court in Ramkrishan Kulwantrai v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1979] 44 STC 117, as also another decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Automobile Products of India Limited [1983] 52 STC 314. Section 46(2) of the Act provides: "No person, who is not a registered dealer and liable to pay tax in respect of any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to the language and the meaning of section 46(2), as also to make a mockery of 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." In the case of Automobile Products of India Limited [1983] 52 STC 314, a similar view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
