9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal and taxable turnover at Rs. 10,54,41,976.21 and Rs. 31,01,297.16, respectively. The assessing authority rejected the said return of turnover and passed an assessment order under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on February 10, 1998 and determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 19,35,80,540 and Rs. 9,10,92,480, respectively, to the best of its judgment and levied tax of Rs. 97,86,260. In the said assessment order he had determined the purchase price of sugarcane at Rs. 390 per MT. An appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Appeals. Appeal stood dismissed. The second appeal filed before the Tribunal also stood dismissed. It is in these circumstances, petitioner is before us. The foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also taken note of the purchase tax rebate of Rs. 12 per ton in his order. He notices that the petitioner-company is permitted to deduct Rs. 12 per ton from the tax payable to the Government and paid it to the sugarcane suppliers as Government subsidy which is a post purchase activity, hence the claim of exemption from tax payment and purchase value is not acceptable. Ultimately, he would pass an assessment order against the petitioner. When the same was challenged before the appellate authority, the appellate authority notices that the record indicates that the appellant paid the total consideration to the sugarcane growers for supply of sugarcane for the crops season of 1989-90, and comprehensive price at Rs. 365 per ton and for cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the excess over prices fixed under Control Order paid under State advice. After noticing the various aspects of the matter, the apex Court noticed as under: It was argued by the learned counsel for the State that the higher price inclusive of the excess amount included in the advance paid on State advice is deemed to have been paid by an agreement between the grower and the purchaser and, therefore, the entire amount would be the price of sugarcane. This is a question of fact in each case. It is true that if in a given case it is found as a fact on the basis of evidence that the purchaser had agreed with the grower to pay the higher price described as 'advance' including the amount in excess of the additional price fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
