9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak rightly disallowed the claim of deductions in the amount of Rs. 24,982.97 and Rs. 11,404 during the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively, of sale of cotton seed to M/s. Sushil Trading Company and M/s. Atma Ram Ram Lal, Bhiwani, as ingenuine; (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Authority rightly used its best judgment estimate and worked out the sale of cotton seed in the amount of Rs. 4,20,000, Rs. 9,77,000 and Rs. 4,27,794 in each of the three years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively, purchased from within the State on the strength of registration certificate without payment of tax for purposes specified in section 24 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Haryana and outside the State. On this basis, the Assessing Authority worked out that cotton seeds worth Rs. 4,20,000 in 1977-78, Rs. 9,77,000 in 1978-79 and Rs. 4,27,794 in 1979-80 purchased from within the State on the strength of registration certificate without payment of tax were used without reasonable excuse in the manufacture of goods sent for sale outside Haryana on consignment basis. The Assessing Authority did not levy tax on these purchases but held that the dealer became liable to penal action under section 50 of the Act and imposed penalties for these three years. The dealer claimed deductions to the extent the cotton seeds were sold to registered dealers. These deductions were disallowed by the Assessing Authority as ingenuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to re-examine this issue in this light. Feeling aggrieved by the order of remand, the State of Haryana filed applications before the Tribunal under section 42(1) of the Act requiring it to refer the aforesaid three questions of law to this Court for its opinion. The applications have been rejected holding that no question of law needs to be referred to this Court as, according to the Tribunal, the issue to be re-examined by the Assessing Authority was in conformity with the judgments reported as Chittarmal Ram Dayal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1983] 52 STC 18 (All.), Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. [1983] 52 STC 24 (All.), Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Berar Oil Industries [1975] 36 STC 473 (Bom) and State of Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
