|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 114 Records
-
1971 (9) TMI 174
Issues:
1. Whether tax on declared goods can only be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act and not under the State Sales Tax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved a revision under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The respondent was assessed for the assessment year 1965-66 under the Sales Tax Act, including a turnover of groundnuts sold to non-resident dealers in the course of inter-State trade. The respondent disputed the assessment, leading to appeals before the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that tax on declared goods could only be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act, not the State Act. The main question was whether tax on declared goods could be levied under the Sales Tax Act.
The court analyzed section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which imposes restrictions and conditions on the imposition of tax on declared goods by a State. It was noted that there was no bar to the levy of sales tax by a State on declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court then examined section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, which provides for the levy of sales tax on declared goods. Section 6 specified the rate and point of tax liability for declared goods, ensuring compliance with the conditions laid down in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The court concluded that section 6 of the Sales Tax Act aligned with section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and did not go against it. The court held that tax could indeed be levied under the State Sales Tax Act on declared goods, including groundnuts. The Tribunal's conclusion that tax on declared goods could only be collected under the Central Sales Tax Act was deemed erroneous. Consequently, the court allowed the revision, emphasizing that tax could be levied under section 6 of the Sales Tax Act on declared goods. No costs were awarded, and a nominal fee was specified.
-
1971 (9) TMI 173
Issues:
- Interpretation of sales tax deductions in a government contract.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge in a suit filed by a partnership firm, acting as contractors, against the Government. The firm contended that the Government had wrongly deducted sales tax twice from the payments made for materials supplied in a road construction contract. The Government argued that the deductions were legal as per the contract terms and the Sales Tax Act. The trial court ruled in favor of the firm, awarding them a refund of the deducted amount with interest. The Government appealed this decision, claiming that the contract terms obligated the contractors to pay sales tax. The High Court analyzed the definitions of "dealer" and "registered dealer" under the Sales Tax Act to determine the Government's status. It concluded that the Government did not qualify as a dealer or a registered dealer, thus not entitled to recover sales tax from the contractors. The court cited relevant case laws to support its decision, emphasizing that the Government did not engage in the business of selling goods, as evidenced by the contract clauses indicating the materials remained the Government's property. Therefore, the deductions were deemed illegal, and the trial court's decision was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, with the Government directed to pay costs to the firm.
This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting contract terms and statutory provisions accurately in disputes involving tax deductions in government contracts. It underscores the significance of defining key terms such as "dealer" and "sale" under relevant legislation to determine tax liabilities. The court's reliance on precedents and contract clauses to establish the nature of the transaction and the parties' obligations provides a comprehensive analysis of the case. The decision serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving tax deductions in contractual agreements with governmental entities, emphasizing the need for clarity and compliance with legal requirements to avoid erroneous deductions and subsequent legal challenges.
-
1971 (9) TMI 172
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow to impose tax on inter-State sales.
2. Interpretation of provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act regarding liability to pay tax on subsequent sales.
3. Determining the appropriate State for levy and collection of tax on inter-State sales.
4. Application of the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act in the context of registered dealers.
5. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow in assessing tax on subsequent sales.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow to impose tax on inter-State sales. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, arguing that since the movement of goods started from Bihar, the tax should be assessed in Bihar. The court held that under section 9(1) of the Act, the State where the movement of goods commences has the authority to levy and collect the tax. As the goods originated from Bihar, the sales tax authorities in Bihar should have made the imposition, not the Sales Tax Officer in Lucknow.
2. The interpretation of provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act regarding liability to pay tax on subsequent sales was also a crucial aspect of the judgment. The court clarified that every dealer is liable to pay tax on inter-State sales under section 6 of the Act. The argument that only registered dealers are liable for tax on subsequent sales was deemed invalid. The court emphasized that the liability to pay tax on inter-State sales arises from section 6, and the proviso to section 9(1) does not absolve unregistered dealers from tax liability.
3. The determination of the appropriate State for levy and collection of tax on inter-State sales was another significant issue. The court pointed out that as per section 9(1) of the Act, the State where the movement of goods commences is responsible for levying and collecting the tax. In this case, since the goods started moving from Bihar, the sales tax authorities in Bihar had jurisdiction to impose the tax.
4. The application of the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act in the context of registered dealers was also discussed. The court rejected the argument that the proviso applied to dealers who should have obtained registration, not just those who were registered. It was clarified that there is no provision in the Act deeming all dealers, whether registered or not, as "registered dealers."
5. Lastly, the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow in assessing tax on subsequent sales was challenged. The court dismissed the argument that a fresh movement of goods occurred during the second sale, giving jurisdiction to the Sales Tax Officer in Lucknow. It was held that if the goods were in the State during the second sale, they would be taxable under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, not the Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer in Lucknow had no jurisdiction to proceed under the Central Sales Tax Act.
In conclusion, the court granted relief to the petitioners, quashing the assessment order and restraining the respondents from recovering the assessed amount. The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdictional considerations and the correct interpretation of tax liability provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act.
-
1971 (9) TMI 171
Issues:
Whether spray booths, dust collectors, and textile humidification plants are considered air-conditioners under entry 4 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis:
The court analyzed the definition and characteristics of air-conditioning based on various sources, including Trane's Air-conditioning Manual, "Marks 'Mechanical Engineers' Handbook," Random's House Dictionary, Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary, and Encyclopaedia Britannica. The court concluded that air-conditioning involves controlling the temperature, humidity, and sometimes the purity of the air in an interior space. It requires the simultaneous control of at least the temperature, humidity, and air motion.
The court examined the functionalities of spray booths, dust collectors, and textile humidification plants. It determined that spray booths, used in engineering for component painting, are not air-conditioners as they do not control temperature or humidity but collect paint mist. Similarly, dust collectors, designed to limit dust emissions in industries, do not serve the purpose of air-conditioning as they are not intended to control temperature or humidity.
Regarding textile humidification plants, the court acknowledged their role in lowering temperature and providing evaporative cooling. However, it questioned whether they could be classified as air-conditioners since they do not solely focus on controlling temperature and humidity but also involve other components like axial flow fans and centrifugal pumps.
The court referenced previous judgments, such as Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat and Star Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bombay, to highlight the interpretation of similar entries in sales tax acts. These cases emphasized understanding terms like refrigerators or air-conditioners in a commercial sense rather than a strained or unusual manner.
After considering all aspects, the court concluded that spray booths, dust collectors, and textile humidification plants do not fall under the definition of air-conditioners as per entry 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the tax cases were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
-
1971 (9) TMI 170
Issues: Assessment of turnover based on survey report, relevance of suppression detected in one year for other assessment years, rejection of account books for multiple years.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court involved the assessment of turnover for the years 1959-60 to 1965-66 for a dealer in silver ornaments based on a survey report and other relevant factors. The court addressed three key questions referred to them. Firstly, whether the survey report dated 9th May, 1961, was relevant for years other than 1961-62. The court emphasized that the material discovered during a survey may be relevant for different years if it pertains to suppression across those years. In this case, the survey directly related to the suppression of turnover in 1961-62 and was found to be relevant for subsequent years due to defective accounts and unvouched purchases in those years.
Regarding the second question on whether the suppression detected in 1961-62 could justify an inference of suppression in other years, the court held that while the suppression alone may not be sufficient, when coupled with other circumstances, it becomes relevant for assessing turnover in the remaining years. The court highlighted the importance of considering the overall account quality and market reputation of the assessee when estimating turnover after rejecting account books.
Lastly, the court addressed the rejection of account books for years other than 1961-62. It was noted that once the account books are rejected, turnover estimation becomes crucial, taking into account the past record, accounting practices, and market reputation of the assessee. The court upheld the rejection of account books for all years based on the defective nature of the accounts and unvouched purchases, leading to the estimation of turnover based on stock positions and commercial practices.
In conclusion, the court answered the three questions by stating that the survey report was relevant for subsequent years, suppression detected in 1961-62 was significant when coupled with other circumstances, and there was sufficient material to reject the account books for the years in question. The court ordered the assessee to pay costs to the Commissioner and provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the case, ensuring a thorough examination of the assessment process and relevant legal principles.
-
1971 (9) TMI 169
The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee, Babu Ram Vishnoi, stating that the survey report of 10th March, 1967, was not relevant for rejecting his account books for the assessment year 1965-66. The rejection of the account books was deemed improper and illegal. The question of law was answered in the negative in favor of the assessee, who was awarded costs of Rs. 50.
-
1971 (9) TMI 168
Issues:
1. Whether hand-made bidis are liable to sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of relevant notifications dated 1957 and 1967 regarding the exemption of tobacco and its products from sales tax.
3. Determination of the definition of "tobacco" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Analysis of the definition of "manufacture" in relation to tobacco products.
5. Comparison of the definitions and classifications under different Acts to determine the tax liability of hand-made bidis.
Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in selling hand-made bidis, contested an assessment order for sales tax, arguing that bidis are not subject to sales tax. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of notifications exempting tobacco and its products from sales tax. The 1957 notification exempted tobacco and all its products from tax until July 1967. Subsequently, the 1967 notification amended the definition of tobacco to align with the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The definition of tobacco under the 1944 Act is broad, encompassing any form of tobacco, whether cured or uncured, and includes manufactured products like bidis.
The definition of "manufacture" under the 1944 Act clarifies that processes related to tobacco products, including bidis, fall under the definition of manufacturing. The court emphasized that bidis are considered manufactured tobacco and, therefore, exempt from sales tax under the notifications. The contention that only machine-made bidis are exempt was dismissed, as the classification in the Act is for excise duty purposes and does not limit the broader definition of tobacco.
The judgment draws support from a previous case in the Patna High Court, reinforcing the interpretation of similar notifications under a different Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the court allowed the writ application, quashing the assessment order and restraining the tax collection. The judges unanimously agreed on the decision, highlighting the comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the relevant legal provisions to determine the tax liability of hand-made bidis.
-
1971 (9) TMI 167
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of proceedings under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. Limitation period for assessment under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
3. Imposition of sales tax on sugarcane sales in light of Section 29(1) of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947
The main issue was whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 13(5) of the Act began with the order dated September 28, 1959, directing the issuance of notice, or with the actual issuance of the notice on January 10, 1962. The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings began when the notice was issued on January 10, 1962. The court agreed, stating that "initiation of proceedings for assessment" means when a notice is issued to the dealer, not merely when an internal order to issue such a notice is made. The court emphasized that initiation must be understood in the context of achieving the objective of informing the dealer about the assessment, which only occurs when the notice is actually issued.
2. Limitation Period for Assessment under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947
The court examined whether any part of the assessment for the period from April 1, 1955, to June 30, 1959, was barred by limitation under Section 13(6) of the Act. The Tribunal had interpreted the term "period" as the entire block of time during which the dealer failed to register. However, the court found that "period" should be understood as a unit of one year. As a result, the assessment for the periods from April 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956, and from April 1, 1956, to March 31, 1957, were barred by limitation since the proceedings were initiated on January 10, 1962, beyond the four-year limitation period.
3. Imposition of Sales Tax on Sugarcane Sales in Light of Section 29(1) of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937
The dealer argued that the imposition of sales tax on sugarcane sales was barred by Section 29(1) of the Control Act, claiming it amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the imposition of cess under the Control Act and sales tax under the Sales Tax Act were two separate imposts authorized under different entries of the Constitution of India. The court concurred, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab, which upheld the validity of dual taxation. The court also noted that no cess had been levied under the Control Act during the relevant period, making the issue of double taxation moot.
Summary of Judgments:
- Initiation of Proceedings: The Tribunal's decision that proceedings under Section 13(5) were initiated on January 10, 1962, was upheld.
- Limitation Period: The court held that the assessment for the periods from April 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956, and from April 1, 1956, to March 31, 1957, were barred by limitation.
- Imposition of Sales Tax: The court ruled that Section 29(1) of the Control Act did not bar the imposition of sales tax on sugarcane sales under the Sales Tax Act.
Conclusion:
The court provided clear interpretations and upheld the Tribunal's findings on the initiation of proceedings and the imposition of sales tax while ruling that certain assessments were barred by limitation. The decisions were based on a thorough analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
-
1971 (9) TMI 166
The petitioners sought certiorari against assessment and appellate orders for various assessment years. The court held that a Hindu undivided family is not a "dealer" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Recovery proceedings cannot target the karta of the family. The petition was partly allowed, restraining recovery from the karta. No costs were awarded. (Case: 1971 (9) TMI 166 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
-
1971 (9) TMI 165
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the first proviso to section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the payment of admitted tax for entertaining appeals.
2. Calculation of the admitted tax rate based on turnover for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1963-64.
3. Determination of whether the assessee fulfilled the requirement of depositing admitted tax at the prescribed rate.
4. Assessment of liability to pay tax when challenging the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act involving an assessee who is a manufacturer and dealer in bricks. The Sales Tax Officer estimated the turnover for two assessment years higher than disclosed by the assessee and levied tax at different rates. The assessee disputed the tax rates and jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, leading to appeals and subsequent revisions. The High Court rephrased the questions and addressed three key issues.
1. The court clarified that the admitted tax for appeal purposes should be calculated based on the rates specified in relevant notifications, not the general rate under section 3. As bricks were taxable under section 3-A, notifications set the tax rates at 6% and 7% for the respective years. The court held that the appropriate rate for determining the admitted tax was as per the notifications, not the general rate, as contended by the assessee.
2. The court found that the assessee failed to deposit the admitted tax at the prescribed rates of 6% and 7%, instead of the lower rate of 2% claimed by the assessee. Consequently, the court ruled that the assessee did not fulfill the requirement of depositing the admitted tax as per the first proviso to section 9 of the Act, rendering the appeals non-entertainable.
3. Regarding the liability to pay tax when challenging the Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction, the court noted that the assessee had admitted to paying tax at 2% in the appeal memorandum. As the admitted tax was found deficient and the jurisdiction challenge did not absolve the assessee from payment, the court held that the assessee was not exempt from tax payment based on the jurisdiction objection.
In conclusion, the court answered all questions against the assessee, affirming the tax department's position and awarding costs to the department. The judgment emphasized adherence to prescribed tax rates for calculating admitted tax, fulfilling payment requirements for appeals, and maintaining tax liability despite jurisdictional challenges.
-
1971 (9) TMI 164
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to include specific articles in the Central Sales Tax registration certificate.
2. Interpretation of "goods required for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale" under Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.
4. Relationship between agricultural and manufacturing activities for tax purposes.
5. Relevance of precedents and statutory provisions in determining the scope of goods includible in the registration certificate.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Include Specific Articles in the Central Sales Tax Registration Certificate:
The primary question was whether the petitioner was entitled to include certain articles in the Central Sales Tax registration certificate under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner, a company involved in tea planting and manufacturing, sought to include materials essential for tea cultivation and processing. The registration certificate initially included these items, but the sales tax authorities later issued a show-cause notice to exclude them, arguing that they were not essential for manufacturing tea.
2. Interpretation of "Goods Required for Use in the Manufacture or Processing of Goods for Sale" under Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The court examined Section 8(3) of the Act, which allows registered dealers to purchase goods at a concessional rate if they are used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. The court emphasized that the goods must be integral to the manufacturing process. The petitioner argued that the excluded items were essential for manufacturing tea, while the revenue contended that agricultural and manufacturing activities were separate.
3. Applicability of Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957:
Rule 13 expands the scope of goods mentioned in Section 8(3) to include raw materials, processing materials, machinery, plant, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, etc., used in manufacturing or processing goods for sale. The court noted that the goods excluded by the respondent were necessary for the agricultural process, which is integrally connected to manufacturing tea.
4. Relationship between Agricultural and Manufacturing Activities for Tax Purposes:
The court held that the agricultural and manufacturing activities of the petitioner were inseparable. The process of growing tea leaves was directly connected to manufacturing tea. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, which stated that processes integrally connected with ultimate production fall within the expression "in the manufacture of goods." The court found that the agricultural process was essential for manufacturing tea, making the excluded goods necessary for the manufacturing process.
5. Relevance of Precedents and Statutory Provisions in Determining the Scope of Goods Includible in the Registration Certificate:
The court referred to relevant precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These cases supported the inclusion of goods used in processes integrally connected to manufacturing. The court also considered the definition of "agricultural income" under the Indian Income-tax Act and the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, which treat the growing and manufacturing of tea as integrated activities. The court disagreed with the Kerala High Court's decision in Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. The State of Kerala, which held that goods used in agricultural activities preceding industrial activities could not be included in the registration certificate.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the agricultural and manufacturing activities of the petitioner were inseparably linked, and the goods required for agricultural activities were essential for manufacturing tea. Therefore, these goods should be included in the Central Sales Tax registration certificate. The court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondent to amend the certificate accordingly.
Petitions Allowed:
The court allowed the petitions and directed the respondent to amend the registration certificate to include the excluded goods. There was no order as to costs.
-
1971 (9) TMI 163
Whether after the reorganisation of States, the Sales Tax Officer, Balaghat, had no jurisdiction to assess the sales tax in respect of the sales from the mines in the Nagpur and Bhandara districts which no longer formed part of the State of Madhya Pradesh?
Held that:- Appeal allowed.The High Court has disposed of the matter mainly on the interpretation of section 78 of the Act of 1956 with which we are unable to agree. For these reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to it to redecide the same and while doing so all the material points that arise for determination will also have to be decided by it.
-
1971 (9) TMI 162
Whether Goa and Pondicherry were not States as contemplated by Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the case of the sales to dealers in Goa, no doubt the appellant did produce the declarations in the prescribed form but those declarations were not produced within the time prescribed. The notifications issued prescribed that the declarations in question should be produced within the time prescribed therein. We have already held that those notifications were valid notifications. The appellant has suffered because of its own laches.
-
1971 (9) TMI 161
Whether an agent of a principal who is also a dealer under Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is entitled to the same rights as his principal has under the Act?
Whether the principal is entitled to the exemption claimed has been left open by the High Court?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The determining factor in all such cases is whether the buyer directly or by implication agree to buy and the seller agree to sell separately the packing material. In this case we are not called upon to go into that question. We merely indicated the approach as a matter of guidance. The question for decision by us lies within a narrow compass and that question is whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption in respect of packing charges if his principal could have claimed it had it sold the cement itself. On that question, we agree with the view taken by the High Court.
-
1971 (9) TMI 160
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transactions are purchases of cotton by the society from its members?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Therein this court on an examination of various clauses in the agreement held that the relationship between the assessee and its representatives was that of agent and principal and not of vendors and purchasers. Set aside the judgment of the High Court and discharge the answer given by the High Court and answer the question referred to the High Court in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1971 (9) TMI 159
Whether High Court erred in awarding interest on the principal amount claimed from the date of the suit?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. High Court rightly exercised that discretion. It disallowed the interest claimed by the plaintiff-respondent up till the date of the suit. Before instituting the suit, the respondent had issued a notice to the appellant, calling upon the appellant to pay the money illegally collected from it; but despite that notice, the appellant failed to pay back the amount illegally collected from the respondent. That being so, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in awarding interest on the principal amount from the date of the suit.
-
1971 (9) TMI 158
Whether the assessee- company is entitled to the exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 asked for by it?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the present case the assessee-company has sold the goods in question to certain manufacturers who were manufacturing iron and steel materials. It is also clear from question No. (i) that those gloves were to be used by workmen who were engaged in hot jobs or in handling corrosive substances in the course of manufacture. That being so, it cannot be denied that those gloves had to be used in the course of manufacture.
-
1971 (9) TMI 157
Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax acted illegally in exercising his powers of revision under section 39(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, in respect of the assessment order dated December 28, 1961, which was passed in respect of the returns submitted on January 30, 1958, and June 17, 1958, and on the basis of the notice in Form XI issued on August 29, 196l?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The former provision prohibits the Commissioner from revising an order which has been made more than two years previously and the latter provision permits him to revise the order till the expiry of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Therefore the revenue cannot call into aid the second part of the proviso. The resulting position is that the governing provision would continue to be section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act.
-
1971 (9) TMI 156
Whether penalty can be levied while making the assessment under sub-section (2) of section 12 of Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 merely because an incorrect return has been filed?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the present case the High Court found that the turnovers involved in the first and the third items were not determined on the basis of any estimate or best judgment. The quantum of turnovers in respect of both these items were based on the assessee's account books. The true position, therefore, was that certain items which had not been included in the turnover shown in the returns filed by the assessee were discovered from his own account books and the assessing authority included those items in his total turnover. For these reasons the High Court was justified in holding that the assessment of the first and the third items could not be regarded as based on best judgment. The penalty thus could not be levied in respect of those two items.
-
1971 (9) TMI 155
Whether the High Court was right in its opinion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was incompetent to enhance the assessment of the assessee, the respondent herein?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The fact that a different procedure is prescribed under the 1959 Act for enhancing the assessment cannot be said to be an infringement of a vested right. No one can have a vested right in a mere procedure.
|
9911796707
