TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax from its customers: On sugar sold inside Uttar Pradesh ... Rs. 16,006-7-9. On sugar sold outside Uttar Pradesh ... Rs. 15,476-5-6. On rab ... Rs. 2,234-12-0. Sales tax was chargeable under the U. P. Sales Tax Act on the turnover of sugar sold inside Uttar Pradesh, but the turnover of sugar sold outside Utter Pradesh and the turnover of rab were exempt from sales tax. The respondent deposited Rs. 15,345-4-6 in the Government treasury during the assessment year on different dates in the four quarters of that year, and with each deposit a clear statement was enclosed containing full particulars indicating that the deposit was made on account of the tax due in respect of sales made inside Uttar Pradesh. An assessment order was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax and Rs. 15,345-4-6 already deposited during the quarters of the assessment year, and that the sum of Rs. 15,345-4-6 deposited by it during those quarters could not in law be appropriated against the liability under section 8-A(4). This contention found favour with the Judge (Revisions), and he ordered that out of the deposit of Rs. 16,006-7-9 subsequently made by the respondent a sum of Rs. 15,476-5-6 should be refunded. The principle is well-settled that where two or more distinct debts are owned by a debtor to his creditor, the debtor has a right at the time of making the payment to appropriate the money to any of those debts, and if the creditor accepts the money he is bound to apply it towards the satisfaction of the debt indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J., observed: "..............in view of the provisions of section 59 of the Contract Act, it was not open to the Collector to appropriate those payments to any kist save and except the September kist in accordance with the express direction of the plaintiffs at the time when they made the payments." It is not disputed that the amount deposited towards the tax liability and the amount liable to be deposited under section 8-A(4) represented debts owed by the respondent to the State. Now no provision of law has been placed before us on behalf of the State to justify the appropriation against the liability under section 8-A(4). In view of the considerations mentioned above, we are of opinion that it was not open to the Sales Tax Authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 10(5). The language of section 10(3) is wide. The revising authority is entitled to pass such order as it thinks fit. That power is not confined merely to revising an order passed by the assessing authority or the appellate authority. It would also include the power to pass consequential orders. The order directing refund is a consequential order, following the order holding that the respondent was not liable to deposit a further sum of Rs. 16,006-7-9. We are of the view that the Judge (Revisions) had jurisdiction to make the order of refund, which he did, under section 10(3) in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel for the State further contends that consequent to the demand made by the Sales Tax Authorities the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
