Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURTLevy of purchase tax at 2% on the value of gold jewellery - it was the case of the petitioner that they had received the goods from three persons for safe custody and displaying in its business premises and there was no purchase attracting liability under section 7A of the TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, after verification of the accounts for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and memorandum of declaration of deposit and refund of gold ornaments produced by the petitioner, it was found by the assessing officer that the dealer had received gold ornaments to the weight of 1900 grams from 3 persons on 28.11.1996; the receipt of such gold ornaments was entered in the regular stock book at page 47 / Vol.II on 28.11.1996; and the goods so received were sent for conversion and manufacture of new jewels along with the dealer's other purchases of old gold jewels. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the ornaments were received as deposit for show purpose, was not accepted by the assessing officer, taking note of the liberty granted to convert the gold ornaments into new one by melting process. Having regard to the admitted fact that though the petitioner said to have received 1900 grams of gold ornaments from 3 persons for deposit purpose on 28.11.1996, they had not declared the said fact of deposit before the Enforcement wing officials on 07.01.1997 and that, they admitted the entire stock of gold ornaments to be its own stock only at the time of inspection; and no separate stock book was maintained by the petitioner for such deposit, this court finds no reason to differ with the view so taken by the Tribunal - the contention raised on the side of the petitioner that there was no purchase of gold jewellery by the assessee, but only a deposit or loan of such jewellery from the relatives and the same does not attract the levy of purchase tax under section 7A of the Act, cannot be accepted. This court holds that the Tribunal has rightly restored the order of the assessing officer and set aside the order of the appellate authority and hence, the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference - Petition dismissed.
|