9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "The tax cases are admitted to consider the following questions of law:- 1)Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal was perverse in reversing the order of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner on assumption that the petitioner had collected tax in violation of Section 22(1) of the TNGST Act, 1959? 2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in ignoring proviso to Section 22(1) of the TNGST Act, 1959? 3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in ignoring that unless the tax collected as excess is shown separately in invoices reverse working from the sale price or formula to fix the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner has collected TS/IC at 10.50% on the sale value of the medicines. It was further pointed out that the Petitioner has collected 10.50% on their sales, which is more than what they have paid on the purchases. In this regard, a sample invoice dated 28.07.2004 was examined. The Petitioner stated that they have not collected tax in their sale bills but collected tax suffered and they have collected the actual tax sufferance with the incidental charges by specific mention of TS/IC and TS would mean Tax Sufferance and IC would mean Incidental Charges. The Petitioner has approached this Court and filed Writ Petition in W.P. No.9497 of 2005, which was disposed of by order dated 21.03.2005, directing the authority to pass orders on the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is argument could have been considered. In the instant case the same cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that the Petitioner miserably failed to place the records called for nor responded to the notice issued to them, permitting them to file objections on or before 23.01.2006. Therefore, with the available records, the assessing officer has adopted a formula and worked out the excess tax collected from the sale and purchase value for the respective years. Therefore, we see no error in the manner in which the assessing officer has proceeded with to assess the Petitioner. Further, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the decision reported in 106 STC 367, wherein, it has been held that the excess collection in whatever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India also emphasizes that tax cannot be collected without any authority of law. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Mool Chand Shyam Lal reported in (1988) 4 SCC 486. The said decision arose out of assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the High Court on the facts found that it should be examined if the excess realisation was of sales or purchase tax thus incurring penal liability under Sub-clause (qq) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15-A or it was excess realisation of price over and above that the assessee was entitled to charge from its customers under Notification issued under the Essential Commodities Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
