9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drums, which means there was no ground-nut oil in any of the drums. Thereupon, he levied and collected the tax on the footing that 50 drums of ground-nut oil have been sold by the petitioner, and that tax is payable thereon. Besides the above order, he passed a separate order of composition. The order of composition, in so far as it is relevant, reads thus: "The person-in-charge of the goods while admitted the said irregularities gave a statement to the effect that the consignor, one M/s. P. Venkataraghavulu Company, of Sullurpet has issued spurious sale bills in order to hoodwink the department without actually transporting 50 (fifty) drums of ground-nut oil from Sullurpet, to Tirupati. The dealer has thus violated the provisions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of 50 per cent thereof. The relevant portion of the order of assessment dated April 22, 1986, reads thus: "M/s. P.V. Raghavulu Co., Sullurpet, were assessed for the year 1983-84 in G.I. No. 11735/83-84 on a gross and net turnover of Rs. 1,05,70,849.18 and Rs. 89,10,112.24, respectively on December 13, 1985. Aggrieved of the above orders the dealers preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appeals, Guntur, in appeal No. 1257/85-86 disputing the addition of a turnover of Rs. 1,84,275. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appeals, Guntur in appeal No. 1257/ 85-86 dated March 6, 1986, set aside the assessment made and remanded the case back to the assessing authority for disposal. The dealers have produced their account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition order been passed on the footing that there has been a failure to pay, or the evasion of tax due, probably the said assessment order would have become relevant, but not in the present case. We, therefore, cannot agree that by virtue of the aforesaid assessment order dated April 22, 1986, the basis of the composition order is knocked out and, therefore, the amount collected thereunder should be refunded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, put forward an alternative argument. His contention is that in this case the matter falls under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 32, and not under clause (a). If so, contends the counsel, the amount of composition cannot exceed Rs. 1,000. Sub-section (1) of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
