Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (10) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... examined the record. 3.. Briefly stated, the facts relevant to dispose of the appeal are these: The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act. For the assessment year from November 16, 1982 to November 4, 1983, it filed the monthly returns along with the payment of tax in respect of its turnover relating to groundnuts and peanuts. It also filed the return for the aforesaid assessment period. Before the assessment was completed, having come to know of the amendment effected to entry 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act, the assessee filed a revised return for the period from April 1, 1983 to November 17, 1983 and claimed levy of tax on the purchase turnover of peanuts at 3 per cent which was the rate specified after the amendment to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. 6.. The assessee filed his objections on April 23, 1986. Among other things, the assessee contended that groundnuts and peanuts had been classified under one and the same entry 5 of the Fourth Schedule, subjected to the same rate, that therefore in the returns filed it was being mentioned as groundnuts, that even after the amendment of the entry with effect from April 1, 1983, splitting the entry into two parts subjecting groundnuts to the tax at 4 per cent and peanuts at the rate of 3 per cent due to want of knowledge of the amendment, it continued to mention goods in the returns as groundnuts and that it is only after the amendment effected to the entry with effect from November 18, 1983, it filed revised return and claimed lower rat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y reads as under: "5(a) Groundnut including groundnut seeds- (i) purchased within Purchase by the first or Four per Karnataka earliest of the successive cent dealers in the State liable to tax under this Act. (ii) obtained from outSale by the first or earliest of Four per side Karnataka the successive dealers in the cent State liable to tax under this Act. (b) Peanuts, coconuts (i.e., Purchase by the first or Three copra excluding tender earliest of the successive per cent coconuts......... dealers in the State liable to tax under this Act. Again, the entry suffered amendment by Act 23 of 1983 and the entry relevant for our present purpose, as amended with effect from November 18, 1983, reads as follows: "5(a) Groundnut or pea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd examining the certificate and the invoices, the appellate authority concluded that the tax leviable on the purchase turnover of peanuts for the period from April 1, 1983 to November 17, 1983, should be at 3 per cent. 10.. The Commissioner taking a view that the appellate authority was wrong in holding that peanut was different from groundnut and taking the view that order was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue chose to interfere with the order made by the appellate authority. The question therefore that falls for our consideration in this appeal is, whether the groundnut and peanut are different commodities or one and the same for the period from April 1, 1983 to November 17, 1983. Botanically, there is no difference between ground .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... separate transactions attracting different rates of tax. This aspect was totally overlooked by the Commissioner and what was not really an erroneous order was taken to be an erroneous order by the Commissioner. Thus the Commissioner assumed jurisdiction under section 22-A where none existed. Nor can it be said that charging a lower rate as prescribed by the Legislature after the amendment for the given period, i.e., between April 1, 1983 and November 17, 1983, was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. As such, the Commissioner could not assume revisionaI jurisdiction, in view of the catena of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court on the question of revisional jurisdiction in similar circumstances. 12.. We, therefore, for the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates