Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (12) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icable, liability relating to payment of sales tax can be recovered. Learned singe judge had also set aside the order of forfeiture on account of the conclusion that there was no justification for demanding payment of demurrage and penal interest inasmuch as the delay was not on account of the lapse on the part of the present respondent, but was on account of various unsustainable objections raised by the department from time to time. No justification to differ from the ultimate conclusion of the learned single judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. - W.P. No. 11123 of 1999 & Writ Appeal No. 1145 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2007 - MISRA P.K. AND SASIDHARAN K.K. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by P.K. MISRA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntimating the confirmation of the bid, demanded that the present respondent is required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,74,894 towards the sales tax dues in addition to the amount payable towards the auction. Immediately thereafter, on February 6, 1999, the present respondent intimated to appellant No. 2 that since the transaction was in course of export, the department should not insist on payment of sales tax in view of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Subsequently the respondent filed W. P. Nos. 4574 and 4575 of 1999 for quashing the order dated February 2, 1999 so far as it related to the payment of sales tax and to direct the department to accept form H after export is over without insisting on payment of sales tax and surchar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that if such direction was not complied within 15 days, action would be taken to forfeit the amount and resale the sandalwood. The Department by way of reply to the letter of the respondent dated December 2, 1999, stated that as per the judgment in W.P. No. 11123 of 1999 dated March 2, 1999, sales tax at eight per cent was liable to be paid. Ultimately, on January 29, 2000, an order of forfeiture of the amount deposited by the present respondent was passed. Thereafter, the respondent filed W. P. No. 10971 of 2000. Such writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge by issuing the following directions: (i) The direction contained in the impugned order regarding forfeiture of the EMD and deposit is quashed. (ii) The petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the auction notice, the purchasers were required to pay sales tax and, therefore, the present respondent need not have unnecessarily dragged on the proceedings raising such controversy; (2) Since the respondent had failed to complete the transaction and take delivery of the sandal wood in question, the department had rightly called upon the respondent to pay demurrage as well as penal interest; and (3) The auction in question had been held long back in 1998 and the present price of the sandal wood having gone up, it would be inequitable to complete the transaction. It is to be noticed that soon after the order was passed by the learned single judge, the present respondent tendered the entire balance amount and also the required b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... part of the present respondent, but was on account of various unsustainable objections raised by the department from time to time. For the aforesaid conclusions, the learned single judge has relied upon the observation made in the aforesaid Division Bench decision. It is relevant to note at this stage that the decision of the Division Bench in W. A. Nos. 94 to 96 of 2000, which was practically between the same parties though in respect of some other similar transactions, the State Government had filed appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by giving a reasoned order confirming the decision of the High Court. As a matter of fact, under almost similar circumstances another Division Bench in a very recent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates