9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd., both of which are in respect of assessment years 1983-84 is whether quantity discount claimed by the applicants under rule 44 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act is allowable to them or not. In the two revisions filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., another question raised by them is whether they were liable to pay tax on a turnover of Rs. 27,268 in respect of credit notes for the assessment year 1983-84 and whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally competent to re-impose tax on a turnover of Rs. 8,642.98, which was quashed by the first appellate authority but who did not allow only additional tax thereon, when no second appeal was filed by the department against it in the Tribunal. Similarly, in Revision No. 147 of 1999 filed by M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd., the first question of law raised is in respect of quantity discount as in Revision No. 2 of 1997 of M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., and also that they were entitled to reduction of tax on a turnover of Rs. 10,128.16 in respect of "refused consignments ", which was not allowed to them at all levels. 3.. The learned counsel for the applicant Sri V.N. Tandon, Advocate, vehemently ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase which showed total discount of Rs. 1,75,653 but the assessing authority in the same manner rejected the said figure of the applicant and again fixed the turnover at Rs. 10,00,000. It was further argued that in both the cases the Tribunal, however, though did not agree with the turnover determined by the assessing authority, has remanded the case back to the assessing authority for a fresh determination of the claim of the applicants. It has been further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that similar claims were made by both the applicants and in all the subsequent years on production of the lists on similar lines in which they were filed in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 in the cases of both the applicants, the said claim was allowed even by the assessing authorities, which fact is quite apparent from the assessment orders for the year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1989-90 of M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., and from the assessment orders for the year 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1990-91 of M/s. Dey's Medical Stores (Mfg.) Ltd., in Revision Nos. 3, 4 and 6 of 1997 of M/s. Dey's Medical Stores Ltd., and revision Nos. 144, 145 and 146 of 1999 of M/s. Dey's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been held by the division Bench of this Court that "Under clause (ii) of the second explanation to section 2(i) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, a deductible discount can be in cash or in kind, provided it is allowed on the sale price. The provision does not require the discount to be paid immediately the price is paid. The provision also does not concern itself either with the motive which impels a dealer to pay a discount or the manner and method of payment adopted by him. It is thus, immaterial whether a dealer pays something to a customer as an inducement for the prompt payment of the sale price or with a view to push up his own sales or with a view to get the better of his competitors in the trade. The only condition before a payment can be excluded from the turnover is that it should be a payment in cash or kind and that it must be allowed on the price of any sale. " 9.. In the case of State of Madras v. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. [1973] 32 STC 649, it is held by the Madras High Court, which interpreted similar provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, that the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied to a dealer merely because the discount is not given either i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed and the purchaser has not taken delivery of the goods. There is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants. Rule 44(b) is reproduced as under: "(b) subject to the provisions of the Act, all amounts allowed to purchasers in respect of goods returned by them to the dealer within six months from the date of delivery of the goods: Provided that the accounts show the dates on which the goods were sold and returned and also the date on which and the amounts for which the refund was made or credit was allowed." 12.. The expression "from the date of delivery" in the said clause (b) are important, and if no delivery took place, there is no question of application of the time-limit of six months in the transaction. The natural interpretation which can only be made of the above provisions, is that the time-limit of six months would run from the date of delivery of the goods to the purchaser, and not before, and in case no delivery of goods took place, then there was no question of starting the time-limit, as the sale could not be completed itself unless the delivery of the goods takes place to the purchaser. The Tribunal, in the case of Dey's Medical Sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that originally there were revisions under section 10 of the Act, and the Judge (Revisions) had been vested with the suo motu powers, which were withdrawn in the year 1956, but later they were resorted in the shape of "on its own motion" which powers were again withdrawn and thus after withdrawal of the said expression, either the Judge (Revisions), or the Tribunals constituted under section 10 of the Act were not vested with the powers to interfere in the impugned orders of their own, unless it is challenged by way of a second appeal, either by an assessee or the Commissioner of Sales/ Trade Tax, and as in the present case no second appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), in which tax on the turnover of Rs. 8,642.98 was quashed, hence the Tribunal was not legally competent to enter into the question as to whether tax was rightly or wrongly quashed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). 14.. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and there appears much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants, U.P. Sales Tax Act came into force with effect from April 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the applicants, as in revision Nos. 2 and 5 of 1997, stay orders were granted by this Court, and in revision No. 5 of 1997 fifty per cent of the tax due was stayed by this Court's order dated January 6, 1999, which was deposited, in view of the decision of division Bench of this Court in the case of Anuj Bricks v. State of U.P. 2000 UPTC 999, paragraphs 4 and 5 of which are reproduced as under: "4. The grievance of the petitioner is that interest on principal amount must also be paid by the department. We agree with this submission as interest is the normal accretion on capital. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Babu Ram Daya Nand Prakash v. State of U.P. 1997 UPTC 1264 (paras 8 and 9). 5.. Following the said decision, the petition is allowed. The department is directed to pay 15 per cent interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund of the principal amount and this interest will be paid within three months of production of certified copy of the order before the authority concerned." 17.. In view of this decision of the division Bench of this Court, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is liable to be allowed to the applicants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
