9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und the amount of tax realised by the dealer on the discount given to the purchaser despite the fact that there was no provision in the U.P. Sales Tax Act to allow Assessing Authority to refund the amount of tax excessively realised by the dealer? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Dealer ) gave certain discount to its customers and has realised tax on the discount also which was subsequently refunded to the purchaser. The amount realised on the discount has been treated as excess realisation of tax and according to Assessing Authority should be deposited by the dealer and is liable to be forfeited under Section 29-A of the Act. The Assessing Authority accordingly, ordered for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the Assessment Year 1980-81 he realised 8 per cent as tax bona fide believing it to be sales tax leviable on sale of the carbon and stencil papers as unclassified item. From the averments in the writ petition it is revealed that there seems to be some dispute whether this goods is liable to tax as unclassified item and tax leviable at 8 per cent or 6 per cent. The Commissioner, Sales Tax under Section 35 held that carbon and stencil papers are taxable at the rate of 6 per cent under the entry Taper of all kinds'. This decision came on 6th July, 1982. The contention of the petitioner is that till this decision the petitioner bona fide believing it to fall under unclassified item realised the amount and also deposited with the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doing so on which the amounts stand forfeited with the respondents. On behalf of the learned Standing Counsel reliance was placed on the case of R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat v. Ajit Mills Limited and another, reported in 1979 U.P.T.C. 171 : (1977) 40 S.T.C. 497 . If the provisions as contained in Gujarat Act was also in U.P. as in the Gujarat Act, there was Section 37 where the respondent, namely, the State has right to forfeit this amount, then position would have been different. If any amount deposited with the State was liable to be forfeited, then the argument raised by the petitioner was not available but we do not find any such forfeiture clause under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Thus the question of the said amount stands forf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, has been given with the Assessing Authority. It is for the Assessing Authority to ascertain the veracity of such statement. Accordingly we allow the writ petition with costs and direct the respondents not to withdraw the refund/adjustment voucher No. 44, dated 8th November, 1988 and will verify within a period of three months the veracity of which has been filed before the said authority after giving opportunity to the person concerned regarding the said payment having been made and only in case any amount is not verified, that amount will be adjusted towards the amount already deposited by the petitioner which is to the tune of ₹ 92,837.56 paise and then pass concequential order of refunding the amount if any amount found rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
