9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / 2016 (Central), by which, the learned Appellate Board rejected the prayer for referring Questions No.1 and 2 to the High Court for its opinion. 2.Facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of edible oil manufactured from soya seeds. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and continued to be so under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Act, 1994. The petitioner is also registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3.The petitioner was assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore by order of assessment dated 10.01.2008 (Annexure 'A'). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only referred Questions No.3 and 5 to this Court under Section 70 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and declined to refer the remaining questions. 6. Relevant paragraphs No.4 to 7 of order dated 24.09.2016 (Annexure 'F') passed by the learned Appellate Board read, as under: - a)Chunnilal Prashadilal v. CST, UO (Lucknow) (1986)-62-STC-112 (SC), b)The State of Madras v. Radio & Electricals Ltd. (1966)-18-STC-222 (SC), c) ADM Stores & another v. CST, Delhi (1966)-18-STC-305 (Delhi), d)ACTO v. White Marble House (2006)-148-STC-14 (Rajasthan), e)Milk Food Ltd. v. Commissioner, VAT (2013) 59-VST-1 (Delhi), f)Western Coalfield Ltd. v. CCT (2009) 14-STJ-379 (MP Bd), g)Western India Ply Woods Ltd. v. State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olumn (3) of the Schedule. In Column (3) of the Schedule, it has been specifically mentioned that when the goods specified in Column (2) are manufactured by a dealer registered under the Adhiniyam out of such soyabean seeds which has suffered tax under sub-section (2) of Section 10-B and sold by such manufacturer. 11.In this matter, transaction should be made with the registered dealer and who has submitted C-Form, but in the case in hand, C-Forms submitted by the purchaser have been found forged, which clearly shows that the purchasers are not registered dealer, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax and penalty as imposed by the Competent Authority and the same has been affirmed by the Appellate Board, therefore, order dated 24.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
