9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The dealer was carrying on the business of footwear. It had not got itself registered with the sales tax authorities as, according to it, it did not have sales exceeding taxable quantum. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, an order of assessment was passed whereby the assessing authority held that the assessee had reached the sale figure of Rs. 30,000 on March 31, 1966. This order was set aside in appeal because the appellate authority held that the liability to tax under section 4 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), could arise only if the sale exceeded taxable quantum of Rs. 30,000. As the taxable quantum was not exceeded, the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 11, 1974 and it took note of the fact that in the assessment order for the year 1966-67 full facts of the case had been discussed and the accounted version of the dealer had not been accepted as reliable. Against the order of reassessment for the year 1966-67 and the order of assessment for the year 1967-68, two appeals were filed by the dealer to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner passed a consolidated order on December 30, 1974. He quashed the assessment for the year 1966-67 on the ground that it was barred by time, but with regard to the assessment for the year 1967-68, the same was upheld with the following observations: "However, so far as assessment for the year 1967-68 is concerned I have considered the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in the present case. The Assistant Commissioner has quashed the reassessment for the year 1966-67. The same must be held to cover the liability aspect also. It, therefore, follows that for the year 1967-68 the assessing authority has to determine the date of liability afresh. Since this was not done, I am constrained to restore the matter to the assessing authority for doing the needful." An application for reference being filed, the Sales Tax Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question to this Court: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that quashing of assessment for the period November 1, 1966 to March 31, 1967, as being barred by limitation would i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e happening of a contingency, namely, gross turnover must exceed the taxable quantum. The liability to pay tax arises after expiry of two months from the date on which such gross turnover is first exceeded. According to sub-section (5) of section 4 of the said Act, taxable turnover, inter alia, means in relation to the respondent Rs. 30,000. Section 4 does not contemplate any order being passed by the assessing authority on the taxable quantum being exceeded by the dealer. The liability to pay tax is fixed by the statute itself. The liability arises on the taxable quantum being exceeded by a person. Once the liability to pay tax arises, assessment is made under section 11 of the Act. Assessment can be made whether or not a dealer files the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent from the passage from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which has been quoted above, on merits the Assistant Commissioner found that the liability to tax had arisen for the assessment year 1966-67. It is for this reason that the assessment for the year 1967-68 was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. The aforesaid finding of fact arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner has not been set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal seems to have proceeded on the basis that section 4 required an order to be passed determining the liability to pay tax. As we have already indicated, the language of section 4 does not contemplate any such order being passed. Section 4 determines specifically as to on the happening of which event the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "till, therefore, fresh liability in the present year 1967-68 was determined, no assessment could take place" is without any legal basis. The determination of liability, as we have already held, is by virtue of the Act itself and not by virtue of any order passed by the assessing authority. The liability is determined when the taxable quantum is exceeded. It is not determined when any order is passed. The taxable quantum in the present case was exceeded with effect from September 1, 1966 and the question of any fresh liability being determined for the year 1967-68 could not in law arise. For the aforesaid reasons, the question of law is answered in the negative and against the dealer. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
