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

2014 (5) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... agent of the principal, was entitled to get commission or any monetary benefits from the principal - Going by the facts that the sales of the damaged goods were finalised by the Principal and that apart from the commission, the assessee received expenses for taking the damaged goods into its possession, it is difficult to conclude that there was a sale omission to the tune of Rs.2,87,493/-- Thus no justifiable reason to accept the plea raised by the revenue - Revision is allowed – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Case (Revision) No. 1975 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. Ravichandra Baabu,JJ. For the Petitioner :Mr. S. Ramanathan For the Respondent :Mr. Manoharan Sundaram Special Government Pleader (Tax) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a Industries Limited, Rourkela had despatched 83 pieces of refractory bricks to M/s. Vyline Glass Works Limited. Since the bricks got damaged during transit, M/s. Vyline Glass Works Limited refused to take delivery of the goods. It is stated that the damage to goods in transit occurred in March 1992 itself. Therefore, M/s. Orissa Industries Limited, for whom the assessee was acting as marketing organisers, instructed the assessee to take delivery of the goods and assured to compensate the losses, if any, that it might incur on taking possession. Accordingly, the assessee despatched the consignment to M/s. Associated Refractories Minerals under bill No. 003 dated 16.04.1993 and sold the goods for a lesser price as the goods were in a damag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted 10 bricks of various sizes with lesser damage for Rs.76,731/- including packing charges etc., The balance 73 bricks were shown by the assessee as opening stock as on 01.04.1993 and subsequently, they were sold to M/s. Associated Refractories Minerals under bill No. 003 dated 16.04.1993 for a lesser value than the actual value inasmuch as the goods were delivered only in a damaged condition. Subsequently, the assessee raised a debit note for Rs.2,89,717.37 on 20.04.1994 for the difference between the purchase and sale price and the same was also given credit to the account of the assessee by their principal on 28.05.1994. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as far as the assessee was concerned, it received a sum of Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... officer is right in construing the transaction in question as a deemed sale and determined the sale price with reference to the initial cost price and selling price fixed by the Principal to the assessee. All the above points had been appreciated by the Tribunal and it rightly dismissed the second appeal filed by the assessee and therefore, he would submit that interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. We have heard the counsel for both sides. The Assessing Officer determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs.12,24,992.90 and Rs.10,86,562.32 and also levied penalty at Rs.5,825/- under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act. The assessing office estimated the sales omission at Rs.2,87,493/- on the ground that the assessed had an opening s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refractrory bricks. They had sold 215878 bricks under the Central Sales Tax Act and there was no other sale locally or under Central Sales Tax Act and showed the closing stock as nil. Admittedly, on the consideration received, the revenue had not filed any documentary evidence to show the actual purchase value of the goods or actual sale value of the goods. The assessee pointed out that on the date of receipt of the goods, neither the Principal nor the assessee could value the damaged goods and the real value came only on finalising the sale. Thus, the lesser value had resulted in the difference. In connection with this, the assessee had placed the materials in the form of correspondence between the petitioner and the Principal. In the abse .....

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