9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds or steel, etc., in Assam. The company is a dealer under the Act. The petitioner-company also undertakes job works for conversion of billets into M.S. rounds on behalf of various customers in Assam. The petitioner as a dealer has been paying tax as required under the Act on its overall turnover of iron and steel materials manufactured by it for sale in the State. For the period ending September 30, 1977 (in Civil Rule No. 1099 of 1988), March 31, 1988 (in Civil Rule No. 1100 of 1988), September 30, 1979 (in Civil Rule No. 1101 of 1988), March 31, 1981 (in Civil Rule No. 1102 of 1988), September 31, 1981 (in Civil Rule No. 1103 of 1988), March 31, 1982 (in Civil Rule No. 1104 of 1988) and September 30, 1982 (in Civil Rule No. 1105 of 1988), the petitioner submitted its returns of turnover showing details of sales and paid the admitted tax as per law. No tax was, however, paid on the sale proceeds of the surplus M.S. rounds received by the petitioner from its customers if the burning loss was less than 10 per cent. The 3rd respondent issued notices under section 9(2) of the Act and in pursuance thereof the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and produced its books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The 1st respondent by order dated February 21, 1984 allowed the revision petitions directing the 2nd respondent to admit the appeals and to stay the demand subject to payment of Rs. 1,500, Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 2,000 for the above period. After hearing the petitioner, the 2nd respondent disposed of all the appeals by annexure III, common order dated November 15, 1984, rejecting the appeals and upholding the decision of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent also rejected the objection regarding the payment of interest raised by the petitioner's counsel. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petitions before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also by annexure V, common order dated April 23, 1988, dismissed the revision petitions. Thereafter, as a follow up action the 3rd respondent issued annexure VI notices dated May 31, 1988. Hence, the present petitions. 4.. I have heard both sides. 5.. Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a dealer was liable to pay taxes on the aggregate sale price of taxable goods manufactured, made or processed by him in Assam, or brought by him into Assam from any place outside Assam for the purpose of sale in As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the legal position it will be apposite to look to few of the definitions. "Dealer" has been defined under section 2(2) of the Act. As per the said definition, "dealer" means any person who carries on the business of selling taxable goods in Assam. Prior to December 15, 1977 the definition of "dealer" was somewhat different. It meant any person who used to sell taxable goods manufactured, made or processed by him in Assam, or brought by him into Assam from any place outside Assam for the purpose of sale in Assam. "Sale price" has been defined under sub-section (6) of section 2 of the Act as follows: "(6) 'Sale price' used in relation to a dealer means the amount of the money consideration for the sale of taxable goods manufactured, made or processed by him in Assam, or brought by him into Assam from any place outside Assam for the purpose of sale in Assam, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the trade practice, but includes any sum charged for containers or other materials for the packing of such taxable goods;" "Taxable goods" has been defined in section 2(8). As per the said definition it means such goods as are specified in the Schedule attached to the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Department of Industries and Supplies was not the same as Indian Stores Department or the Supply Department of the Government of India and held that the sales were not exempt. The High Court observed that the said Department of Industries and Supplies was not the same as the Indian Stores Department or the Supply Department of the Government of India. Therefore, it was held that the sales were not exempt. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the real object of the sub-section was to give exemption not to particular departments but to the sales of such goods to any department of the Government of India. The Supreme Court while rejecting the contention held that according to the section the exemption was given to all sales made to those two departments, no matter whether the sales were only of the kind of goods which used to be sold to them at the date of the Act or other kinds of goods. The interpretation involved the addition of qualifying words to the section which ordinarily was not permissible for the court to do. To extend the benefit of statutory exemption of the sales made to the newly created department of Industries and Supplies, of goods not required for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 155; [1991] 4 SCC 467 the Supreme Court while considering a taxing statute observed that liberal construction to effectuate the object of the provisions may be resorted to only in cases of genuine doubts or possibility of forming two alternative opinions. It is only when there is a genuine doubt about the interpretation of a fiscal statute or where two opinions are capable of being formed that the rule of liberal interpretation to effectuate the object of the provision may be taken recourse to. 14.. Again in Mahadeo Prasad Rais v. Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Gorakhpur, reported in [1991] 192 ITR 402; [1991] 4 SCC 560 the Supreme Court observed that where literal construction creates anomaly, absurdity and discrimination, only then statute should be liberally construed even slightly straining the language so as to avoid anomaly. 15.. Again in Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa v. N.C. Budharaja Company reported in [1993] 91 STC 450; 1994 Supp (1) SCC 280 the Supreme Court observed thus: "It is submitted by counsel for the respondent-assessee that since section 80-HH is intended to encourage establishment of industrial undertakings in backward areas for the reason that such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
