9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sales Tax to the goods sold. 2. Authority of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, to initiate suo moto revision. 3. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Md. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa. 4. Adequacy of steps taken by the plaintiff to dispute Sales Tax liability. 5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to raise a demand for Sales Tax post contract completion. 6. Binding nature of the Order dated November 21, 1977 on the defendant. 7. Plaintiff's entitlement to interest or compensation. 8. Relief entitled to the plaintiff. Detailed Analysis: Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4: These inter-connected issues were addressed together. The plaintiff initially did not include Sales Tax in the bills, believing the sales were exempt under Section 5(2)(a)(v) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Md. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa, the Assistant Commissioner revised the original assessment, imposing Sales Tax. The plaintiff paid the tax under threat of legal proceedings. The court found the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to revise the assessment, and the plaintiff's acceptance of the revised order and payment did not indicate mala fide intent. Therefore, these issues were resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 6: The defendant contended that the Order dated November 21, 1977, was not binding. The court noted that the plaintiff's claim was based on Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which allows recovery of Sales Tax paid by the seller from the buyer. Thus, the binding nature of the order was immaterial, and the issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5: The defendant argued that Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act does not impose an unlimited liability for Sales Tax post-contract completion. The court referenced a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court, which indicated that the seller's right to recover tax under Section 64A is enforceable. The court concluded that the buyer's liability under Section 64A is not limited to the contract's performance period. Therefore, the defendant could not avoid paying the Sales Tax imposed after the contract's completion, and this issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 7: The plaintiff sought interest or compensation on the Sales Tax amount. The court denied this claim, noting that the defendant had genuine contentions, and the refusal to pay was not frivolous. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to interest or compensation. Issue No. 8: The court decreed the plaintiff's suit in part, awarding Rs. 62,021.62 with proportionate costs and 6% per annum interest.
|
