9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4,49,663.07 in the taxable turnover of the respondent and assessed tax on the same on the view that the respondent had sold the said goods to M/s. Chhedi Lal Gaya Prasad, Bharatpur. On appeal the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Deputy Commissioner") disagreed with the findings recorded by the assessing authority that the respondent had sold tarameera of the value of Rs. 4,49,663.07 to M/s. Chhedi Lal Gaya Prasad. The Deputy Commissioner held that the relationship between the respondent and the Bharatpur dealer, namely, M/s. Chhedi Lal Gaya Prasad, was of a commission agent and principal and that the transaction in question was "buying agency transaction" and not sale. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent had produced books and vouchers as well as the books of the Bharatpur dealer and also produced the affidavit of the Bharatpur dealer dated 25th February, 1980 affirming that the respondent had purchased tarameera worth Rs. 4,49,663.07 during 3rd July, 1974 to 2nd September, 1974 on their behalf on commission agency basis which was duly accounted for in the books of account and for which they hold themselves liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. Hence, this revision. In the revision petition, the petitioner has submitted that the following question of law arises out of the order of the Board of Revenue: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the levy of tax amounting to Rs. 13,489.89 on the purchase of oil-seed?" After perusing the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, I reframe the question which arises for consideration in the following terms: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner remanding the case for further inquiry to the assessing authority?" As noticed earlier the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue have found that relationship between the respondent and the Bharatpur dealer, namely, M/s. Chhedi Lal Gaya Prasad, was of a commission agent and principal and transactions in question relating to purchase of tarameera oil-seeds for Rs. 4,49,663.07 were buying a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also urged that the respondent had produced adequate evidence before the Deputy Commissioner to show that the transactions have been included in the turnover of the Bharatpur principals, and that the Bharatpur principals have been assessed to tax in respect of those transactions and in these circumstances the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in remanding the matter for further inquiry to the assessing authority and further that the Board of Revenue has rightly set aside the said order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has also urged that in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1967] 20 STC 290 the Supreme Court has laid down that in case of commodities which come under the category of declared goods, tax can be levied only at a single point as is made clear by section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and there can be no legal liability for payment of tax accruing until and unless the State Sales Tax Act or the Rules framed thereunder prescribe the single point for taxation. The learned counsel has urged that neither in the Act nor in the Rules framed thereunder is the single point of taxation prescribed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made by the respondent on the basis of declaration given in form S.T. 17 wherein the respondent declared that the goods were being purchased for the purpose of resale in the State of Rajasthan. Admittedly the respondent did not use the goods for the purpose mentioned in the said declaration because they were not resold in the State of Rajasthan. Such a case falls within the ambit of second proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section (s) of section 2 of the Act. Sub-section (s) of section 2 of the Act contains the definition of the expression "taxable turnover" and in clause (iv) sales which are taxable at a point of sale within the State subsequent to the sale by the dealer have been excluded if such sale is covered by a declaration as may be required under any provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The second proviso to clause (iv) reads as under: "Provided further that when any dealer has purchased any goods without paying any tax on the strength of any declaration furnished by him and the said goods are used by him for any purpose other than the one mentioned in the declaration, the purchase price of such goods shall be included in his taxable turnover." In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection that he would make necessary inquiries from the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bharatpur to find out whether the turnover of tarameera in question included in the turnover of the Bharatpur principals and is subjected to tax by them in their hands. There is nothing in the order passed by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue and the order passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue wherein they have disagreed with the said view of the Deputy Commissioner and have held that evidence produced by the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner was adequate and conclusive to show that the Bharatpur principals had paid tax on the turnover of tarameera oil-seeds in question. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the Board of Revenue was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the assessing authority for further inquiry. While concluding the matter, it may be observed that the effect of the order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner is that the assessment in so far as it relates to the liability of the respondent on the turnover of tarameera has been set aside and the respondent would be held liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
