TMI Blog1959 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no requirement as to the giving of the total of the turnovers at different places; such requirement was inserted later in Form No. II in which such applications were to be made. In December, 1949, the Sales Tax Officer of Ahmedabad District began enquiries regarding the registration and liability of the opponents' shop at Dholka. He issued notices on 3rd March, 1950, 22nd March, 1950, 10th July, 1950, 4th August, 1950, and 14th February, 1951, requiring the opponents to produce their books of account of the Dholka shop. The opponents appear to have consistently remained absent and asked for adjournments. On 24th March, 1951, they were told to make a regular application for registration for the Dholka shop. They made such application on 20th October, 1952, and were granted a registration certificate on the same date for the said shop with liability to pay sales tax from 1st October, 1946. Mr. R.V. Patel for the opponents contended that as the opponents were refused a registration certificate for the Dholka shop, they had been misled into thinking that no registration was required for the said shop, that, accordingly, the sales tax had to be paid on all the purchases made by the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, therefore, allowed the application and varied the orders of the authorities below accordingly. 3.. Mr. Patel also contended that the assessment in this case should have been made under section II A of the Act and not under section 11 (5), but we were unable to agree, as the two shops were being assessed separately, and the opponents were asked to apply for registration in the case of the Dholka shop in March, 1951. This contention was, therefore, rejected. 4.. The applicant has proposed the following questions for reference to the High Court: "(1) Whether this Honourable Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the respondents are not liable to pay sales tax for the period 1st October, 1946, to 21st March, 1950, in respect of their said business at Dholka? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the respondents are liable to pay sales tax in respect of their said business at Dholka for the period from 1st October, 1946, to 21st March, 1950? (3) Whether the applicant is estopped from claiming sales tax for the period from 1st October, 1946, to 21st March, 1950, in respect of the turnover of sales of the respondents at their shop at Dholka by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court: "(1) From the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the Sales Tax Officer, refusing registration to the Dholka shop, can be held to establish a case of estoppel against the department to recover any tax up to the date of registration. (2) From the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment should be made under section 11A of the Act and not under section 11(5). (3) The assessment order under section 11(4) based on illegal notices under section 11(5) can be held as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. In our opinion the said questions should be recast as follows: "(1) Whether the Sales Tax Department should be held to be estopped from recovering any tax from the applicants in respect of their business at their shop at Dholka up to the date of registration? Page No: 547 (2) Whether the assessment in this case should have been made under section 11A instead of section 11(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953? (3) If so, whether the assessment made on a notice issued under section 11(5) should be held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act". We think that these questions can be reasonably arguable by the applicants, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollow its judgment in Bombay Film Laboratories Ltd. v. The State of Bombay(1), held the Sales Tax Department was estopped from claiming sales tax prior to the date on which the assessee was required to remain present before the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmedabad District, but for the period subequent to 23rd of March, 1950, the assessee was liable to pay sales tax. The Department and the assessee having partially succeeded, applications were made for references to this Court and on the application of the Sales Tax Department, the following four questions have been referred: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was estopped for claiming the sales tax for the period from 1st October, 1946, to 21st March, 1950, in respect of the turnover of the sales of the opponents at their shop at Dholka? (2) Whether in Form II of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules (as it stood in August, 1946) the opponents were bound to show their total turnover of sales at both their places of business, viz., at Ahmedabad and at Dholka, in their application for registration. (3) If question (2) be answered in the affirmative, whether by reason of the opponents' failure to reveal their aggregate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his turnover even in respect of that shop. The form as originally prescribed was Form No. 11 for an application for registration under section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and that Form was: "To The Sales Tax Officer, I,..................... carrying on the business known as....................... .................. whereof the only/chief place of business within jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer...............................in the district of......................... is situated..........................at Room/Flat No......................Name of Building .................................Municipal No. of Building....................................Ward/ Locality...............................Road..............................Village............................ Post Office.....................................Taluka..............................hereby apply for registration in respect of the said business under the Bombay Sales Tax Act." Thereafter, the entire business was required to be set out. Then follows the statement that "the accounts of the business had been kept in the.................................language and its gross turnover during the year ending the 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red, before the amendment of the Form in 1948, to be furnished. Under section 5 of the Sales Tax Act, as it stood, it was provided in so far as it is material: "Subject to the provisions of sections 6 and 7..................every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceedsshall be liable to pay tax under this Act on his turnover in respect of sales or other supplies of goods effected after the date so notified." The liability to pay sales tax is therefore in respect of the entire business and if that liability is to be made effective, it is necessary in an application for registration to set out the gross turnover in respect of the entire business even though the business is conducted at different places. The assessee has not in his application, submitted to the Sales Tax Authorities, set out his total turnover for the relevant year, and the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmedabad District, was not bound to issue a Certificate of Registration to the assessee, because the turnover did not exceed the prescribed limit. If the assessee misled the Sales Tax Officer into not granting him registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
