Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2008 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 615 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTWhether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the declaration furnished by the selling registered dealer in form of ST-14 is sufficient compliance of the proviso of section 18 of the Act? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the non-deposit of tax by the selling registered dealers during currency of their registration certificate makes the purchasing registered dealer liable to pay the tax, in spite of the fact that the selling registered dealer has furnished declaration to the effect that tax has been paid? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the department can only proceed against the selling registered dealer in view of the fact the registered dealer has been furnished a false certificate and tax has been paid? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law to maintain order of the Assessing Authority when the requirements of section 18 have been fully complied with by the petitioner-assessee? Held that:- For claiming deduction from payment of tax on a subsequent sale of goods on which tax has been paid by the first seller, the dealer (second seller) has to furnish the certificate in the prescribed form and manner and signed by the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased to the effect that the tax on such goods has been paid at the first stage. As per requirement of section 18 of the Act, there was no further step required to be taken by the petitioner to verify the payment of tax. In view of the law laid down by the Madras High Court in Raichael Chacko's case [1983 (12) TMI 272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Raman & Co. case [1990 (10) TMI 364 - Supreme Court of India] , the dealer is entitled to claim deduction from the payment of sales tax on a subsequent sale for goods on which tax has been paid at the stage of first sale and it is not the duty of the subsequent seller to pay tax if the first seller has not paid the tax. Thus, we are of the view that the aforementioned questions of law do arise in the present case and, therefore, we direct the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana to draw a statement of the case and refer to this court for its decision the questions of law as aforementioned which arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated February 10, 1992.
|