9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Sales Tax Act is not exigible to tax during the year 1974-75 if purchase tax has been paid on the very same turnover? 2.. From the statement of the case, it is revealed that the assessee is a partnership firm registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act read with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules. It carries on purchase and sale of jute in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. In the year 1974-75, it despatched jute weighing Q. 2,782.59 kgs. outside the State which was sold through commission agent. Those sales were not supported by the declaration in form F. Accordingly, deduction was disallowed and tax was demanded on such sale. In respect of another Q. 3,640.53 kgs. of jute sold in the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t does not prevent the dealer from discharging the burden by other relevant evidence. He is not estopped from proving by other evidence that he is not liable to pay tax.........." 4.. Mr. A.B. Misra, the learned Standing Counsel, submitted that in the aforesaid decision, rule 12(5) and (7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules have not been considered which would lead to the conclusion that the only mode of proof, that the goods were transferred from one State to the other otherwise than as a result of sale. They read as follows: Rule 12: "(1) to (4)......................... (5) The declaration referred to in sub-section (1) of section 6-A shall be in form F: ........................ (6)................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gencies, Kanpur) in support of his contention that declaration in F form is mandatory to get the benefit under section 6-A. These decisions are in respect of liability to pay tax by a dealer at a lesser rate as provided in section 8 by filing C or D *Here italicised. form. Apart from the difference in language of section 6-A and section 8(4) of the Act, in the latter situation, there is admitted liability on account of sale of goods and the dealer would get a benefit by producing the C or D form but in the former case, there being no sale, the dealer is not liable. But to avoid an inference that there was a sale under the Act, the dealer has the option to prove the same by producing the F form. This is not a conclusive proof. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 1st April, 1973, by the State Government. Mr. Misra submitted that on withdrawal of the notification, the decision of the Full Bench would no more have any effect. Answering the question as framed without necessary facts at this stage would be prejudicial to both the assessee-dealer and the Revenue. However, it can safely be concluded that non-consideration of the notification while setting aside the assessment in that regard makes the decision of the Tribunal vulnerable. The Tribunal is directed to consider the question afresh with reference to the said notification. 6.. In the result, question No. 1 is answered against the Revenue and question No. 2 is answered in a modified form in favour of the Revenue to the extent indicated abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
