Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 345 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxOffence u/s 13(2) r.w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 120-B of IPC - Offence u/s 25 of the Sales Tax Act – Held that:- No offence under Section 120-B, I.P.C. was made out against the petitioner, and for that matter no offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also made out against the petitioner - The prosecution had been launched against the petitioner on the misconceived notion that M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills was liable to pay sales tax on receipt of 21 wagons of wheat, and the petitioner being the agent had conspired to evade tax - The very basis of accusation therefore was misconceived and the prosecution lunched had no legs to stand. The consignment of wheat having been purchased from outside the State of Odisha, the taxable event shall not come till it was sold by the consignee in the of State of Odisha after its receipt by the consignee - If the consignee had brought the consignment of wheat for its own consumption, no Sales Tax shall be leviable on consumption of wheat by the company and Sales Tax can only be leviable on by-product of the wheat when such by-product was dispatched to market for sale - there was no occasion for collection of tax in respect of the consignment of wheat at the Railway Receipt Unit, Jharsuguda on taking delivery of the wheat either by M/s. Bondia Flour and Oil Mills Ltd or their agent - Therefore, the allegation of the Vigilance Department to the effect that Sales Tax had not been collected on consignment of wheat as shown in the entry of Goods incoming Register of Railway Receipt Unit, Jharsuguda, was totally misconceived. K. Neelaveni vrs. State Rep. by Insp. Of Police & Ors [2010 (3) TMI 990 - SUPREME COURT] - While considering the application for quashing of charge-sheet, the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during the course of investigation were required to be considered - Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation was not fit to be gone into at this stage, as it was always a matter of trial - Sales Tax Authority was entitled to impose sales tax in accordance with the relevant Act and Rules, upon a person, who carried on the business of selling goods and who had, in the customary course of business, authority to sell goods belonging to the Principal - A clearing or forwarding agent like the petitioner or a person transporting goods on behalf of the dealer does not carry on the business of selling goods and does not have, in the customary course of the business, authority to sell goods belonging to the dealer, whose goods he books or receives - There had to be a reasonable and proximate connection between the transaction of sale and the clearing or forwarding agent or person transporting the goods before the Sales Tax Authority can, in exercise of the power, levy sales tax. There was nothing to show that there was such close and direct connection between the transaction of sale of goods by the dealer and the clearing or forwarding agent or the agent who booked or received such goods or a person, who transports such goods like the petitioner - The petitioner being, therefore, a simple agent acting on behalf of the proprietor, cannot be held to have any sales tax liability and he cannot be held to have conspired with the Sales Tax Authority to transport the goods without complying the relevant provisions, as he was acting under the instruction of the Principal.
|