Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + AT VAT and Sales Tax - 1976 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1976 (1) TMI 37 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Whether the dealer collected sales tax and general sales tax on resales of electric motors and oil engines in contravention of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Whether the dealer's submission regarding the taxes shown in bills issued to cultivators being the taxes paid to registered dealers is valid. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in confirming the order of forfeiture of the excess tax collection. 4. Whether the rectification application by the dealer regarding the Tribunal's judgment is maintainable under section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Analysis: 1. The dealer was found to have collected sales tax and general sales tax on resales of electric motors and oil engines during the assessment period, contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Sales Tax Officer (STO) issued a notice for forfeiture of the collected amount, which was contested by the dealer claiming the taxes shown in bills were actually paid to registered dealers. The STO, however, found discrepancies in the pricing and upheld the forfeiture order under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed this decision in the appeal (Second Appeal No. 432 of 1973). 2. The dealer argued that the taxes shown in bills were the amounts paid to registered dealers, especially under the Takavi Loan Scheme where the Land Development Bank required a breakdown of prices. The Tribunal referred to a Government resolution and a letter from the Nasik District Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., which indicated that the dealer had indeed charged sales tax on the sale prices of oil engines to agriculturists. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case relied upon by the dealer, Shah Motors vs. The State of Maharashtra, and dismissed the appeal. 3. The dealer filed a rectification application, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider whether the taxes were merely a break-up or actual charges. The dealer cited a different case, Haire Gunjal & Engineers vs. The State of Maharashtra, where a similar situation was deemed a break-up of the sale price. However, the Asstt. CST (Legal) argued that rectification is only for apparent mistakes, and the application was not maintainable under section 62 of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the rectification application, stating that it would essentially amount to sitting in appeal over its previous decision. 4. The Tribunal concluded that rectification was not warranted as the inference drawn from the bills by the Tribunal was deemed correct, and rectification under section 62 was not applicable in this scenario. The rectification application was dismissed.
|