9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The raw materials are declared goods and are being purchased locally from the registered dealers by issuing declarations in form XXIVA against payment of sales tax at 1 per cent. The applicant transferred the manufactured goods which also were declared goods to its Bombay branch as stock transfer. Due to misconception of law, the applicant had paid purchase tax at 2 per cent of his purchase of declared goods from registered dealers valued at Rs. 9,25,085.39 on March 10, 1983. The amount of purchase tax paid by him was Rs. 18,501.71 paise. The applicant had also filed return in annexure P wrongly showing the above purchase of declared goods from registered dealers as taxable specified purchases. In the course of assessment proceeding, the advocate for the applicant detected the above mistake and pointed out the same to the assessing Commercial Tax Officer and also filed the details of the above purchases from registered dealers with list of the declaration forms XXIVA issued to them by the applicant. Counterfoils of the declaration form XXIVA thus issued were produced to him. Books of accounts showing evidences in respect of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 1 were not declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner did not produce any evidence at the time of assessment, appeal or revision to show the goods in dispute were declared goods. On the other hand, the petitioner had at the time of assessment filed a return in annexure P wherein he had admitted his taxable specified purchase price. It is not the case of the petitioner that the goods manufactured out of the goods subject to the levy of purchase tax were not transferred or disposed of in the manner provided for under section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act. At the time of assessment, the petitioner never contended before the respondent No. 1 that the purchases now being disputed were those of declared goods or that he was not liable to pay purchase tax under section 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act on such purchases. The contention of the petitioner that he deposited the purchase tax under misconception of law is an afterthought. It is denied that evidence in respect of the now disputed purchases were produced before the respondent No. 1 to show that the purchase was of declared goods or to contend that the petitioner was not liable to pay purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng process. In the decision of the Taxation Tribunal in the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 367; [1990] 23 STA 60 there was no argument that there has been any change of identity of goods due to manufacturing process. The learned Judicial Member of the Board had accepted the argument of the learned department representative who had referred to the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab [1967] 20 STC 430 (SC). In the instant case, it was held by the Board, that it has been admitted by the dealer that the raw materials have been purchased for manufacturing declared goods. Therefore, the learned Judicial Member of the Board held that the decision of this Tribunal in Jindal (India) Limited case [1990] 76 STC 367; [1990] 23 STA 60 does not apply since in that case imposition of sales tax and purchase tax had been made on the same declared goods. The learned Judicial Member held that in the instant case the raw materials comprised one kind of declared goods of distinct identity and the manufactured goods constituted another type of goods of distinct identity and hence, it was held, the decision of the Taxation Tribunal did not apply to the case. It was further he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of that case, they are identical to the facts of the instant case and therefore the decision in the Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan case [1967] 20 STC 430 (SC) has no relevance in the instant case. On the contrary, the decision of this Tribunal in the Jindal (India) Limited case [1990] 76 STC 367 was applicable in full force and hence the impugned order was bad in law. 9.. Mr. K.K. Saha, learned advocate for the respondent, admitted at the outset that the decision of the learned Judicial Member of the Board to equate the facts of the case with those in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan [1967] 20 STC 430 (SC) was not correct. He also admitted that the point of facts and law in this case were identical to those in the case of Jindal (India) Limited [1990] 76 STC 367 (WBTT) which has already been decided by this Tribunal. He however argued that there was scope for re-examining the decision given by this Tribunal in the Jindal (India) Limited case [1990] 76 STC 367 as, he submitted, the decision in Jindal (India) Limited case [1990] 76 STC 367 (WBTT) did not interpret the law correctly. He therefore argued that the decision of this Tribunal in the Jindal (India) Limited case [1990] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e point in certain circumstances. It is further argued by Mr. Saha that the Calcutta High Court has held (vide Khardah Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 37 STC 382) that the stage in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 refers to the stage of successive sales and purchases. In view of these decisions of the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court, Mr. Saha submitted, it was perfectly legitimate on the part of the Legislature to levy purchase tax as well as sales tax on declared goods if the sale and purchase are both part of the same transaction. In such case section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act is not contravened. 11.. We feel that Mr. Saha s arguments do not carry much conviction as the very same point was argued before this Tribunal in the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1990] 76 STC 367; [1990] 23 STA 60. There also it was contended by the learned advocate for the respondents that sale and purchase of the same goods at the same stage constituted a single composite stage and it was competent for the State Legislature to impose sales tax and purchase tax on the same stage on the transaction without violation of article 286(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 6-A of the said Act is that tax payable at sale point becomes the tax payable on the purchase point, in certain circumstances. Because, the seller is not or cannot be taxed for certain reasons, the purchasing dealer is being taxed. It would therefore, be clear that the real object of the clauses (i) to (iii) in the section is not to levy a consumption tax, use tax or consignment tax, but only to point out that thereby the purchasing dealer converts himself into the last purchaser in the State of such goods. The goods ceased to exist or ceased to be available in the State for sale or purchase attracting tax. In these circumstances, the purchasing dealer of such goods is taxed, if the seller is not or cannot be taxed . It will therefore be clear that the points under consideration and the circumstances under which the liability of the seller or purchaser would arise under the Andhra Pradesh tax were totally different from the circumstances in the instant case. 13.. In their judgment reported in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1967] 20 STC 290 the Supreme Court has again used the terms stage and point synonymously. Thus they have observed section 15, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
