9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Petitioner that even if the trade discount was not specifically mentioned in the definition of sale price it would still be allowable as a deduction. This Court notes that in M/S. CEAT LTD. VERSUS COMNR. OF SALES TAX [ 2019 (8) TMI 1828 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] , a Division Bench of this Court addressed this very issue and allowed an identical plea that trade discount would be deductible from the gross taxable turnover by referring to several decisions including the one delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cynamid India Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Taxes [ 2001 (12) TMI 841 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ]. It was further held that as long as revised returns were filed, the claim could not be rejected on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that First Tax paid goods shall be taxed at more than one point in the same series of sale? 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner is carrying on the business of selling of medicines inside the State of Odisha. It states that it receives goods from its Head Office and different branches on stock transfer and also purchases of goods inside the State of Odisha. It pays tax thereon as first point tax paid goods under Rule 93-G of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. 4. The Petitioner appointed M/s Aditya Medi Sales Private Limited (AMSPL) as its sole distributor to sell the Petitioner s products inside the State of Odisha. In terms of the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea that trade discount would be deductible from the gross taxable turnover by referring to several decisions including the one delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cynamid India Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Taxes; 128 VST 289. It was further held that as long as revised returns were filed, the claim could not be rejected on the ground that the deduction was not disclosed in the original return. This proposition is not disputed by learned counsel for the Department. 7. As regards the second question, viz., insisting on the Petitioner paying sale tax on subsequent sales after having paid sales tax at the first point, counsel for the Petitioner relies on the assessment orders passed in the Petitioner s own case for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
