9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, with him), for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER Special leave granted. We have heard counsel for the parties, and also considered the judgment of the High Court, dated 25th March, 1988, which is challenged in this appeal. It appears that between 1st January, 1960 and 31st December, 1962, the respondent-firm had deposited sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of sale, in the sense that it contemplates an eventual sale. It was also held that the element of sale fructifies when the option is exercised by the intending purchaser after fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The taxable event under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (9 of 1939), was the sale of goods and until that taxable event took place, there could be no liability to pay tax. Hence, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1959 ("the Act"), as amended in the State of Gujarat, alleging that the respondent had collected certain amounts by way of sales tax in violation of section 46 of the Act during the years 1960, 1961 and 1962, requiring the respondent to show cause as to why the said amounts should not be forfeited and penalty imposed. The respondent filed a petition in the High Court of Gujarat, challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for infraction of section 46(2) of the Act. We are, however, of the opinion that the question whether the Revenue was entitled to forfeit the amounts or whether the assessee/ dealer was entitled to claim refund for the amount on account of sales tax paid on the assumption that sales tax was payable even before the sale was complete, would be proper to be gone into in assessment/refund proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
