TMI Blog1954 (1) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Act, the petitioner had to furnish a return for the year ending 31st March, 1948. This it did in form No. III. The original return has been produced in Court. The first item in the return is headed "Total cash receipts on account of-(1)(i) sales of goods other than sales involved in the execution of contract as defined in the Act". Against this the petitioner entered the sum of Rs. 32,27,845-8-9. Against item 4, namely, "Turnover", the petitioner entered the very same sum. From this he deducted under the heading "Deductions under Section 5(2)(a) on account of sales effected during the return period" the same sum, and has shown the balance to be "nil ". This return shows that during the year of accounting, the total cash receipts of the petitioner on account of sale of goods was Rs. 43,27,845-8-9, the whole of which was sold to a registered dealer and therefore the whole of it was to be exempted under Section 5(2)(a) of the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer who scrutinised this return found that the Standard Products Ltd. was not registered under the Act till the 23rd of June, 1947. Therefore, between the 1st of April, 1947, and the 22nd June, 1947, the sales had been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner came to the following con- clusion: "Thus it is clear that the appellant effects the sale to his agent, viz., M/s. Standard Products Ltd., before the latter can sell to the ultimate purchasers. As the sales in dispute have been effected to M/s. Standard Products Ltd., before they were registered under the Act, tax has been correctly assessed on such sales." The appeal was disallowed. From this decision the petitioner appealed to the Board of Revenue. In the grounds of appeal, for the first time, the following point was taken: "VIII. For that the sale proceeds received by your petitioner com- pany during the period between 1st April, 1947, and 22nd June, 1947, amounted to Rs. 1,53,513-12-0. In such circumstances, the assessing authority, at best could impose tax only on this amount in accordance with the provisions of law." The matter was considered by the Member, Board of Revenue, who by his order dated the 21st of March, 1952, rejected the petition. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, pointed to the fact that according to the petitioner's return the gross turnover during the year was Rs. 43,27,845-8-9 and that according to the letter furnished by the peti- tioner from thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities have needlessly complicated matters by holding that there were two sales or that they were on a consignment basis. "Sale" has been defined in the Act as meaning any transfer of property in goods for money consideration [Section 2(g)]. In my opinion, the transfer of goods to the subsidiary company, in the first instance, does not seem to satisfy this definition, because it is not a transfer for a money consideration. The subsidiary company only got a commission, and paid after receiving the money from the consumers. The real sale was by the subsidiary company to the actual consumers. If it was necessary, on the facts of this case, to come to a finding on this point without any other complications, then there might have been some- thing to be said for granting the relief asked for. Difficulties, however, arise at once. The petitioner has been granted exemption for the period subsequent to 22nd June, 1947, on the ground that goods were sold to the subsidiary company who were registered dealers. That is a position which the petitioners have accepted and are still proceeding on that basis. They do not offer to pay the sales tax for the entire amount on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner or before the Commissioner. It is only before the Board of Revenue that for the first time this point was taken. There is nothing before me to show that this point was urged before the Member, Board of Revenue, on the first instance, and certainly noth- ing appears from his order which is otherwise quite lengthy and elaborate. In the petition before me it is not stated that the point was actually urged at the hearing but not dealt with by the learned Member. There is nothing shown to me as to whether any materials were placed before the learned Member to establish that the petitioner received that amount and no more. Mr. Chowdhury refers me to a sheet which appears in a file that has been produced before me by the Govern- ment in which, next to the letter of the 1st May, 1950, there is a typewritten sheet in which certain figures are given about the turnover in respect of the Standard Products Ltd., and there the figure Rs. 1,55,811-3-6 appears. I am afraid this shows nothing. I do not know whether this typewritten sheet was placed before the Member, Board of Revenue, or discussed before him; also the amount is not the same as alleged by the petitioner. It appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
