9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held to be justified. Therefore, the assessee is clearly entitled either to the refund of the said tax paid by it under a mistake of law and fact, or at least, an adjustment of the said wrong deposit of tax @ 2% on the branch transfers. - Decided in favour of assessee - S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision Petition No.155/2006, S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision Petition No.160/2006 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2016 - DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.S.D.Vyas For The Respondent : Mr.Falgun Buch on behalf of Mr.V.K.Mathur BY THE COURT (ORAL) : 1. The Assessee has filed the present two revision petitions before this Court, aggrieved by the common order dated 09.05.2003 passed by the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r) Rules, 1956, but by mistake, on the branch transfers to the tune of ₹ 24,74,860/-, the Assessee wrongly, treating the same as inter-State sales made by it to its another Branch at Bhadoi (UP), collected CST @ 2% thereon and only the balance turnover of ₹ 10,22,048/- was shown as S.O.S. (branch transfers) in the returns filed by it. However, in the revised return filed by it, the Assessee had shown the entire turnover of ₹ 34,96,908/- supported by Form 'F' furnished by it as branch transfers and requested the assessing authority to adjust the CST wrongly paid by it on such branch transfers against the actual CST liability incurred by the Assessee on the inter-State sales made by it to the other purchasers. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Section 3 of the CST Act, 1956, and therefore, the authorities below have erred in imposing the tax and refusing to refund/adjust the CST @ 2% wrongly deposited by the Assessee, whereas the Assessee had corrected the said mistake in the revised returns filed by it, and merely claimed adjustment of the tax against the actual CST liability on the other inter-State sales made by it to the other purchasers, other than the branch of the same Assessee at Bhadoi (UP). 10. On the other hand, Mr.Falgun Buch appearing for Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue however, supported the impugned orders, but could not satisfy this Court about the legality of the imposition of the tax itself, or could not point out any evidence avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Forms alongwith documents in support of such branch transfers like Form 'F' were duly produced by the Assessee, but the same were repelled by the assessing authority, while rejecting the revised returns filed by the Assessee, merely by observing that I do not agree with the reply/contentions of the Assessee ( मैं व्यवसायी से पूर्णतया सहमत नहीं हूँ ). The assessing authority did not disclose any reason or evidence available with the Revenue to show or to establish that the transactions in question were actually inter- State sales made by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout any legal foundation. 15. From the orders passed by the three authorities below, this Court is of the opinion that it leaves much to be desired by these authorities discharging their quasi judicial functions, when they either adjudicate at the original assessment level or decide at the appellate forums created under the law. From the material on record and the contentions raised before this Court, this Court is satisfied that the Revenue has failed to establish that the transactions in question amounting to ₹ 24,74,860/- of carpet yarn sent under branch transfer or S.O.S. transfers from Bikaner (Raj.) to Bhadoi (UP) units of the same assessee amounted to inter-State sales made by the Assessee in the period of in question, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
