2006 (7) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner had to pay an amount of Rs. 6,97,193.69 being compensation for the value of goods of TISCO found short in their godown. Even though the assessing officer has stated in the assessment that petitioner is a consignment agent of TISCO, annexure IV certificate produced by the petitioner shows that apart from maintaining TISCO's godown by the petitioner, petitioner was not effecting sales on behalf of TISCO. The assessment also proves that petitioner has no turnover on consignment agency sales for TISCO. The petitioner's accounts were found true and correct except in regard to payment of compensation to TISCO for the value of goods found short in the godown of TISCO which was under the management of the petitioner. Consequent to pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom their godown which was under the petitioner's management. Even though the assessing officer maintained the stand that petitioner is a consignment agent of TISCO, no turnover of sales made on behalf of TISCO as consignment agent is assessed. Moreover, annexure IV certificate issued by the TISCO produced in this court shows that TISCO was holding the stock in the godown in their own name and they have made sales in their account and have remitted the tax. Details of KGST and CST registration numbers of TISCO are also mentioned in the assessment order. In view of the certificate issued by TISCO and the absence of any assessment of turnover in the hands of the petitioner as consignment sales on behalf of TISCO, we are inclined to accept .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioner produced TISCO's return for the year wherein the amount is disclosed, we do not think there is any need for us to go into the details of transactions of TISCO which is not required for deciding the issue before us. The petitioner has cited decision of this court in Southern Cable Engineering Works v. State of Kerala [2002] 126 STC 178; [2002] 10 KTR 152 (Ker) and that of the Bombay High Court in Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1983] 53 STC 179 and contended that compensation amount paid does not have the character of sales turnover. Even though decisions are not exactly on the point arising for decision in this case, the principle laid down therein support the case of the petitioner. Since we have fou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X