9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (10) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has referred to this Court for its opinion the following questions which are said to be questions of law arising out of its order dated 26th October, 1962: "(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in determining the liability of the applicant to tax during the assessment period on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid sales were not liable to be taxed was not considered on the ground that his liability to pay tax had commenced on 18th December, 1952, as already decided on 10th April, 1957. By an order dated 16th January, 1958, he was required to pay Rs. 1,749 as tax on the sales made by him during the period. He filed two successive appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Board of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged the conclusion that his liability to pay tax had commenced from 18th December, 1952. His main grievance was that he was not given an opportunity to show that he did not become liable to tax from that date. We asked the learned counsel for the applicant whether he had account books or other material by which he could show that his liability to pay tax did not commence from that date and he fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... think, easily answered. As already stated, the applicant had not applied for registration and, if he was liable to pay tax under the Act, the taxing authority could, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed to assess him to tax to the best of its judgment under section 18(5) of the Act. The Board of Revenue affirmed the conclusion that his liability to pay tax commenced fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentially a question of fact depending upon the nature and extent of the business and the surrounding circumstances and does not raise any question of law: Feroz Shah v. Income-tax Commissioner[1933] 1 I.T.R. 219 (P.C.). 5.. In the result, we answer the two questions in the manner indicated above and direct that the applicant shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the department. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
