9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries Ltd., and as per the agreement dated 13th April, 1982, the Salar Jung unit had been transferred by the India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. as a separate unit and that hence the Salar Jung Sugar Mills alone is liable to pay the arrears of tax. He referred me to the date of agreement referred to in the order of the court below. The agreement is dated 13th April, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 16 of 1982 is filed on 6th March, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 12 of 1982 is filed on 10th February, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 5 of 1982 is filed on 10th February, 1982 and the application for recovery in M.C. No. 13 of 1982 is filed on 10th February, 1982. Therefore, looking to the dates of the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent and the Salar Jung Mills. So whatever be the agreement between them, the said agreement would not come in the way of the tax authorities collecting the arrears. This is also the view taken by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town Division, Madras v. Sha Sukraj Peerajee [1968] 21 STC 5. Therefore, the trial court, in my opinion, has misdirected itself by misinterpreting section 15(1) of the Sales Tax Act. Therefore the amounts sought to be recovered in these petitions are for the period prior to the date of agreement between the respondent and the Salar Jung Mills. Therefore, the petitioner in all these cases is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in these petitions either from the transferee or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d) whose total turnover during the year does not exceed rupees five lakhs." Therefore, the purchase tax contemplated by section 25-B of the Act read with section 12-B would amount to an amount due for the purpose of section 13. In M.C. No. 16 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 5,10,099.30 and in M.C. No. 12 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 10,10,809.21 and in M.C. No. 5 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 6,29,058 and in M.C. No. 13 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 11,01,800.28. Admittedly, these are the amounts of purchase tax mentioned by the respondent itself in the various returns submitted by it under section 12. So, all the amounts fell due for the purpose of section 13. 5.. Rule 17(2) of the Sales Tax Rules reads: "If the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to find out as to whether the amount claimed is correct or not, the return should be produced by the taxing authority before the court. Only for this limited purpose the matter is sent back to the court below. After such verification, the court may issue a warrant for the correct amount. 7.. According to the learned counsel Sri Rangaraju, the Government had been moved in this case for remission of the amounts or at least for instalments. If the Government passes any order either regarding remission or regarding grant of instalments and if any such order is produced before the court, then the court may consider this aspect also, if any such order is passed by the Government, it is for the tax authorities concerned to take such steps in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
