9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Commissioner. JUDGMENT 1. The Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'), arising out of its order dated 6.4.1993 in I.T.A. No.1134/Chandi / 92 relating to assessment year 1990-91:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the orders of the lower authorities holding that the assessee being L-13 licensee is governed by proviso to section 44AC and, therefore, not liable to collect tax at source?" 2. The assessee is a dealer in country liquor and holds L-13 licence, as wholesale dealer. The Assessing Officer raised demand against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods but does not include -.......... (ii) a buyer in the further sale of such goods obtained in pursuance of such sale;" After referring to the above explanation, this Court observed (page 765):- "....The language of clause (a) in the Explanation is clear and unambiguous and the exclusions referred to therein do exclude from the main provision, the subsequent purchasers of country liquor. It is not disputed by the department that the petitioners on the basis of their L-14A licences purchased the country liquor from the wholesalers who are L-13 licensees." 4. In K. K. Mittal Co.'s case [(1991) 187 ITR 208 (P H)], which has been followed by the Tribunal, this Court concurred with the following observations of the Himachal Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The matter was again considered by this Court in Chandigarh Distillers and Bottlers Limited v. Union of India, (2002) 253 ITR 205 and view taken in Gian Chand Ashok Kumar's case (1991) 187 ITR 188 (HP) was reiterated. It was held that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sanyasi Rao (1996) 219 ITR 330 upholding constitutional validity of the provision did not affect its interpretation. This Court also followed Full Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Saini and Co. v. Union of India, (2000) 246 ITR 762 and also referred to judgments of this Court in KK Mittal and Co. v. Union of India, (1991) 187 ITR 208 and Satya Pal Amrik Singh and Co. v. Union of India, (1997) 228 ITR 653 (P H). W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
