9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ginning is undertaken. Ginned cotton is transferred to textile unit for manufacture of cloth. The tax assessment officer levied purchase tax at 1 per cent on the purchased cotton in this branch for Rs. 25,09,535 for the year 1964 and Rs. 27,64,348 for 1965. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax but without success. The assessee then filed second appeals before the Tribunal, on the contention that purchase tax should not have been levied on transfer of cotton to the head office after ginning for manufacture of cloth. It was contended that Notification No. 737-3694-V-SR dated March 31, 1959, exempted unginned cotton from purchase tax, if it was established that purchase was made for ginning within the State and ginned cotton was sold in the State of M.P. or in the course of inter-State trade. The Tribunal, however, rejected the contention on the linchpin that cotton had not been sold but utilised for manufacture of cloth. Thereafter, the case was reopened under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act by the assessing authority holding that the purchase turnover was not correctly determined. It was maintained that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Advocate-General with Shri K.K. Gupta, Government Advocate for the department and Shri Goyal, learned counsel for the assessee. 4.. Section 19(1) of the Act provides as under: "19(1). Where an assessment has been made under the Act or any Act repealed by section 52 and if for any reason any sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under this Act or any Act repealed by section 52 during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, the Commissioner, may, at any time within five calendar years from the date of order of assessment, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to reassess within a period of two calendar years from the commencement of such proceedings, the tax payable by such dealer and the Commissioner may, where the omission leading to such reassessment is attributable to the dealer, direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so assessed, a sum not exceeding that amount." 5.. Shri Choudhary very fairly conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court." 10.. As regards the point of issue-"estoppel", the apex Court held in AIR 1970 SC 1381 (Lalta v. State of U.P.) as under: "Where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding of fact has been reached in favour of accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by the terms of section 403(2), Criminal Procedure Code. Section 403 does not preclude the applicability of this rule of issue estoppel. Judgment in Cri. Revn. Applns. Nos. 410 and 413 of 1964, decided on 3-6-1966 (All.) reversed. AIR 1956 SC 415; AIR 1965 SC 87; (1900) 2 QB 758; 77 CLR 511; 96 CLR 62 and 1950 AC 458, Rel. on." 11.. The ultimate goal in all matters more so in tax matters is to answer and to attain finality. That is the view laid down by the apex Court in [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC); AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81/1-179 against the orders dated January 30, 1979. The learned President referred three questions to Division Bench of Tribunal on January 10, 1980 (annexure D) which answered the questions in favour of the assessee on March 5, 1980 (annexure H). The Division Bench took the view that "where assessment has been confirmed and no new facts have been brought on record, it is not open to the assessing officer to initiate proceedings under section 19(1) (para 11 of the order dated March 5, 1980). In our view this manifests the attempt to escape from the crucial question. Luculently what was required to be noticed and dealt with is chronicled below: (a) Whether the matter of earlier order, tested under appeal and becoming final, and matter of reassessment on the basis of alleged escaped assessment or under-assessment was same or different? (b) Whether the discovery of alleged difference in regard to quantum of purchase turnover was or was not "new fact" to permit or bar proceeding under section 19(1)? (c) Whether expression "from the date of order of assessment" employed in section 19(1) meant "order of assessing officer or order of final appellate authority or Tribunal, as the case m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
