9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest. So, by upholding the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, all the revisions in question are hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment submitted that the assessee is a Department of the Central Government, who is exclusively owner of the crop of the opium as per the contract with the cultivators. The Narcotic Department granted a licence to each and every cultivator to grow the opium on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the Department is the owner of the crop. So, there is no question of "sale of opium" by the cultivator to the Department. However, he admitted that the sale of the opium is taxable item as per the judgment passed by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 4354 of 2000 dated September 28, 2005, Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer, Ghazipur. He also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the fact that, although the ingredients of a 'sale', as defined in Benjamin's Treatise on 'sale', may seem to be satisfied even if delivery of goods is in obedience to an order to deliver them for a consideration, fixed or to be fixed, if we stretch mutual assent to cover assent resulting from orders given, yet, it is difficult to see how such a transaction would be based on a contractual tie. According to section 4(3) of our Sale of Goods Act, a sale results only from a contract which presupposes a minimal area of freedom of choice where the ordinary mechanism of proposal and acceptance operates." The learned counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Coffee Board, Karnataka, Banglore v. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unable to accept this submission either. There is no trust created in the scheme of the Act in the Coffee Board; it is a statutory obligation imposed on the Coffee Board and does not make it a trustee in any event. It is also not possible to accept the submission that the Central Sales Tax Act will not be applicable to any sale by the Coffee Board because it was an export sale by the Coffee Board. In Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore [1980] 46 STC 164 (SC), it has been held that there must be a prior agreement at the time when the transaction of sale takes place. No such prior agreement existed in this case. 49. In New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar [1963] 14 STC 316 (SC); [1963] Supp 2 SCR 45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he opium grown by the cultivators is taxable item to trade tax. For this purpose, the judgment and order dated January 21, 2000 passed by this honourable court in the case of Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer, Ghazipur (W.P. No. 167 of 1989) was upheld by the honourable Supreme Court. When it is so, then the revisions filed by the Narcotic Department (T.T.R. Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88 of 2006 and T.T.R. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 of 2000) have no merits and the same are hereby dismissed. II. Trade Tax Revision Nos. 185, 202, 203, 204, 205 and 206 of 2008 are concerned with the interest imposed under section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. After hearing both the parties, it appears that section 8, sub-clause (1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Act, the interest would be payable in terms of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act and not in terms of sub-section (1B) of section 8 of the Act. 17. This court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Qureshi Crucible Centre [1993] 89 STC 467 (SC) has held that where a dealer fails to pay tax at the correct rate because he claimed not to know the revision in the rate, the dealer remains liable to pay interest at a higher rate, the penal rate under section 8(1) from the date when the tax became due and payable. In such a case, the dealer cannot claim that he is liable only from the date of the assessment order fixing the correct rate of tax. 18. Similarly, in a case where the dealer has taken a chance and it has been held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
