Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 153 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPurchase assessment u/s 43B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act quashed Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Authority to levy sales tax in place of purchase tax limited to the amount of purchase tax liability Held that:- The transaction of purchase of empty bottles and packing material had two facets - under the first facet, it was whether purchase tax u/s 4B of the Act was or was not leviable on empty bottles and packing material and secondly if no purchase tax was leviable whether it was exigible to sales tax at the time of sale thereof along with the manufactured goods - at the same time, the transaction it is liable to sales tax at the time of sale thereof along with manufactured product which liability of the assessee is shown to exist - The Tribunal has only directed the assessing authority to levy sales tax on the bottles and packing material to the extent of quantum of tax which had been imposed by the assessing authority in the original assessment order thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against petitioner. Liability to pay sales tax - Export duty recoverable in respect of spirit exported to other States or Union Territories in India, forms part of turnover Held that:- "manufacture and export duty" is the liability of the buyer - once that is so, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner loses its weight in McDowell And Co. Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officer [1985 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME Court] it has been held that it was primarily a burden which the manufacturer had to bear - intending purchasers of the Indian liquors who seek to obtain distillery passes are also legally responsible for payment of the excise duty is too broadly stated - The 'duty' was primarily a burden which the manufacturer had to bear and even if the purchasers paid the same under the Distillery Rules, the provisions were merely enabling and did not give rise to any legal responsibility or obligation for meeting the burden - the provisions of rules 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 do not militate against the conclusion that the payment of excise duty is a liability exclusively of the manufacturer - In these rules detailed provisions have been made regarding obtaining of distillery pass, correct calculation and full payment of excise duty, the manner of depositing such duty and ultimately issue of the spirit under the pass from the distillery - these rules do not detract from the position that payment of excise duty is the primary and exclusive obligation of the manufacturer and if payment be made under a contract or arrangement by any other person it would amount to meeting of the obligation of the manufacturer and nothing more Decided against petitioner. Jurisdiction of the authorities upon the vires of provision or notification Whether the Tribunal was right in framing assessment at the rate of four per cent having regard to the notification dated April 6, 1973, December 20, 1973 and July 3, 1975 issued under section 4B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act - Held that:- In K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras [1965 (10) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court] - The Act does not confer any such right on them - Their jurisdiction is confined to the assessment of the income and the tax under the provisions of the Act - the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by section 66 of the Income-tax Act is a special advisory jurisdiction and its scope is strictly limited by the section conferring the jurisdiction - as the Tribunal is a creature of the statute, it can only decide the dispute between the assessee and the Commissioner in terms of the provisions of the Act - The question of ultra vires is foreign to the scope of its jurisdiction - If an assessee raises such a question, the Tribunal can only reject it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the said objection or decide on it - the notification dated July 3, 1975 had enhanced the rate of purchase tax from three per cent to four per cent by incorporating it in the notification dated April 6, 1973 - Thereafter by corrigendum dated June 19, 1979 the same was incorporated in notification dated December 20, 1973 which had superseded notification dated April 6, 1973 - the validity of notification cannot be challenged before the authorities under the statute and, thus, the petitioner cannot escape from its liability thereunder Decided against petitioner.
|