Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1970 (3) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Rs. 100. The application disclosed that the sales were estimated below Rs. 50,000. On 25th July, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer made an order determining the turnover of bullion at Rs. 3,50,000 and computing the exemption fee thereon at Rs. 500. He directed the petitioner to deposit the balance, namely, Rs. 400, within ten days of the receipt of the order. The amount was not deposited within the time fixed. On 17th March, 1956, the petitioner gave a cheque for Rs. 400 to the Sales Tax Officer. The cheque was dishonoured, and it was sent back to the petitioner with a direction that the sum of Rs. 400 should be deposited in cash in the treasury within three days and that payment should not be made by cheque again. The petitioner did not compl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 26th March, 1958, the Sales Tax Officer dismissed the application for exemption certificate. In that order he pointed out that the petitioner had not paid the amount of Rs. 400 within time. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision application. The exemption application having been dismissed, the Sales Tax Officer took proceedings under section 21 for assessment of the turnover of bullion. The turnover was assessed to tax by an order dated 17th September, 1959. On appeal, the turnover was reduced by an order dated 12th February, 1962. Against the appellate order, the petitioner filed a revision application. This revision application: along with the revision application refusing exemption was disposed of by a common order dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is mandatory in nature or merely directory. If it is mandatory the omission to deposit the amount within the time fixed results in the forfeiture of the dealer's right to the exemption certificate, but if it is merely directory the deposit of the exemption fee, even though beyond the time fixed in that behalf, will amount to payment in law of the exemption fee and accordingly an exemption certificate must issue. In our opinion, there is nothing in rule 19 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules from which we can infer that the period fixed by the Sales Tax Officer for the payment of the exemption fee is fundamental to the grant of exemption. What the rules require is that the exemption fee demanded by the Sales Tax Officer should be deposited. It shoul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates