Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2009 (8) TMI 1073 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the Tribunal was correct in sustaining the higher rate of tax on the sales of sulphate alumina made by the petitioner against Form-XVII for the manufacture of Benzoin which is not falling under the First Schedule and is liable to tax under Section 3(1) of the Act? Held that - As there is a specific column in column-b which is required to be filled in and the requirement is description of the goods to be manufactured with serial number of first schedule . In so far as the petitioner is concerned admittedly the said column was not filled-in either by the purchaser or by the assessee at the time when the same was produced for availing the benefit under Section 3(3) of the Act. It was in those circumstances the Assessing Authority was forced to revise the turnover and make the assessment for a sum of Rs. 1, 03, 600/-. In fact it is also not in dispute that the ultimate product manufactured by the purchaser who supplied Form-XVII to the petitioner was Benzion (Sambirani) which is not one of the item mentioned in the First Schedule. In as much as Form-XVII relied upon by the petitioner having not satisfied the statutory prescription of fulfilling all the required particulars to be filled-in in the said format the assessee cannot be heard to say irrespective of such defects in the production of Form-XVII the assessee should be conferred with the concessional rate of tax as prescribed under Section 3(3) of the Act and that any other consequential liability should be fastened only on the purchaser. Since the alleged Form-XVII cannot be construed as Form-XVII at all the said principle will have no application to the facts of this case. The revision therefore fails and the same is dismissed
|