9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s tax payable on the excise duty component is concerned. It is not in dispute that the mercantile system of accounting was in vogue in the assessee company. In the revised return filed by the assessee deduction of the amounts claimed by M/S. Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. on sales tax was reflected. That the original return filed by the assessee did not reflect the aforesaid figures is not difficult to understand. At the time when the said return was filed (29.09.1982) the liability of M/S. Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., disclaimed by the said Company, was yet to be determined. After the said claim of M/S. Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. was negatived by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (06.12.1982) and during the pendency of the appeals before this Court M/S. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusions of the Appellate Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment years in question are 1982-83, 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. The issue before the High Court was with regard to the entitlement of the appellant-assessee to the benefit of the deduction of the amount of liability to payment of sales tax on the excise duty component of the goods purchased by the assessee from the manufacturer-seller- M/S. Mc Dowell Co. Ltd. 2. The facts noticed are those arising in the appeal for the assessment year 1982-1983 though the same would suffice for the other appeals also. There is no dispute that in terms of the Agreement between the buyer and seller, the appellant-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eller to reimburse the sales tax and other charges payable by the seller to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on sufficient proof being furnished by the seller to the buyer in this regard . 4. The aforesaid view of the Appellate Commissioner was affirmed by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the Revenue. Aggrieved, a reference was sought and obtained by the Revenue which having been answered in the manner indicated above, the assessee is before us in the present appeals. 5. The order of the High Court dated 5th April, 2005 would go to show that the sole basis on which the claim of the assessee was negatived is the authenticity of the agreement dated 18.12.1981. According to the High Court as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Agreement dated 18.12.1981. Alternatively, it has been submitted by Shri Parasaran that even dehors the agreement, sales tax on excise duty being a part of the sale price, the liability of such tax has to be borne by the assessee. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court would justify interference. 7. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has strenuously urged that the Agreement dated 18.12.1981 should not commend for acceptance of the Court in the light of the surrounding facts, particularly, as the agreement had surfaced from nowhere at an intermediate stage of the assessment proceedings. Learned counsel would urge that the document exfacie appears to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute that the mercantile system of accounting was in vogue in the assessee company. In the revised return filed by the assessee deduction of the amounts claimed by M/S. Mc Dowell Co. Ltd. on sales tax was reflected. That the original return filed by the assessee did not reflect the aforesaid figures is not difficult to understand. At the time when the said return was filed (29.09.1982) the liability of M/S. Mc Dowell Co. Ltd., disclaimed by the said Company, was yet to be determined. After the said claim of M/S. Mc Dowell Co. Ltd. was negatived by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (06.12.1982) and during the pendency of the appeals before this Court M/S. Mc Dowell Co. Ltd. had issued a lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
