9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ists filed against the ex parte provisional assessment order for the months of December, 1998, January, 1999 and February, 1999. 3.. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionists while submitting their return under rule 41 had not shown the turnover of molasses as taxable under the Act but the Assessing Officer had passed ex parte provisional assessment orders dated February 26, 1999, March 10, 1999 and March 30, 1999 for the months of December, 1998, January, 1999 and February, 1999 imposing levy on molasses in pursuance of the notification dated November 23, 1998 issued under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had also affirmed the aforesaid assessment orders passed in the aforesaid second appeals and the Tribunal while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of Rs. 2.50 (rupees two and fifty paise) per quintal of molasses of any category sold by the occupier of the sugar factory." The administrative charges are on the sale of molasses. 7.. The learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the charges imposed above vide notification dated December 4, 1985 are tax in terms of definition of "taxation" under article 366(28) of the Constitution and which reads as under: "'Taxation' includes the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special, and 'tax' shall be construed accordingly." 8.. The learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on a decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kisan Sahakari Chinn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot obeyed the provisions of rule 52 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and has not deposited the admitted tax along with monthly reports despite the demand created against them resulting which the goods belonging to the revisionists were attached and were placed for auction but due to the interim order passed by this Court on February 10, 2000 directing the revisionists to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 10 days and further that in case the amount is deposited, the auction shall not take place and the authority was directed to pass the final orders within 15 days. The goods belonging to the revisionists were not auctioned, hence they were released and final assessment order for the year 1998-99 was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 4 of the Finance Act and section 49 of the Sugarcane Act. If it is not possible then an effort will have to be made to ascertain whether the Legislature had intended to accord the levy on sugarcane a special treatment vis-a-vis the levy of purchase tax on other items, and a further endeavour will have to be made to find out whether section 49 of the Sugarcane Act excludes the applicability of the levy under section 4 of the Finance Act. On a perusal of the provisions of the above Acts including the objects of the two Acts, it could be seen that the two enactments in question contemplate levy of purchase tax. While the Finance Act empowers the State to levy all commercial taxes generally, the Sugarcane Act empowers the levy of purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
