1964 (6) TMI 50 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax on unlicensed dealers in hides and skins.
2. Claim of exemption on sales in the course of export.
3. Presumption drawn by lower authorities based on missing contracts.
4. Interpretation of Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 regarding preservation of accounts.
5. Challenge against the finding of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Consideration of penalty license for the assessees.

The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved a case where the assessees were initially exempted from sales tax on their turnover in hides and skins, but a Supreme Court decision changed the assessment, making unlicensed dealers liable to pay sales tax. The dispute arose regarding a turnover of Rs. 39,000 claimed as sales in the course of export through an exporting agent. The lower authorities presumed the sales to be completed within the state due to missing contracts. The petitioners argued that the accounts were maintained consistently and the missing contracts should not lead to adverse inferences. The Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 required preservation of accounts for five years, and the loss of contracts was deemed accidental. The court found no basis for adverse inferences and set aside the assessment on the disputed turnover.

The petitioners contended that the transactions with the exporting agent followed a uniform pattern, and the missing contracts should not affect the assessment. The government relied on the function of the exporting agent as both purchaser and selling agent for other dealers. The court noted the lack of evidence supporting a departure from the general pattern of transactions and found no legal basis for adverse inferences based on missing contracts. The court allowed the revision and overturned the assessment on the disputed turnover.

The court rejected the argument for a penalty license as no application was made by the assessees. However, this issue became moot due to the court's decision to allow the revision on the disputed turnover. The court upheld the revision on the turnover in dispute but ruled against the petitioners on other aspects of the case. No costs were awarded in the judgment.