TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AA of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, are attracted and the petitioner was not entitled to refund of tax paid in excess at the rate of 6 per cent instead of 2 per cent on the sales of 'charcoal', declared goods?" The facts, on which there is no dispute between the parties, are as narrated below: The references relate to the years 1958-59 to 1964-65. The assesseefirm deals in charcoal, resin and timber, etc. For the assessment years referred to above, the assessee-firm was charged 6 per cent sales tax on charcoal and, according to the assessment, the assessee-firm paid the sales tax. Later on, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh[1967] 19 S.T.C. 469 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Validation) Act, 1967, in respect of declared goods and make such order varying or revising the order previously made as may be necessary for bringing the order previously made into conformity with the provisions of this Act as amended by the Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967: Provided that no proceeding for review shall be initiated without giving the dealer concerned a notice in writing of not less than thirty days. (2) Any dealer on whom a notice is served under sub-section (1) may within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice intimate in writing the Assessing Authority of his intention to abide by the assessment or reassessment sought to be reviewed and if he does so, the Assessing Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing reply: "(1) That the assessee-firm has collected the tax at the last stage and it does not want to get the cases reviewed on this point only. (2) In the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court, in the case of Messrs. Bhawani Cotton Mills[1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.)., it has been held that the levy of sales tax or purchase tax on the sales or purchases of declared goods, is illegal. (3) In the light of the said ruling, the assessee-firm is entitled to get the refund of sales tax on the sales of the declared goods, as under: Assessment year Amount of sales Amount of tax 1. 1958-59 19,125.44 758.33 2. 1959-60 17,189.14 688.62 3. 1960-61 35,488.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment or reassessment and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11AA were not at all attracted. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. S.C. Goyal, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the department, that after the issuance of the notice on 27th November, 1967, and on receipt of the reply to that notice, the Assessing Authority passed an order on 10th January, 1968, refusing to review the assessment on the ground that the assessee showed his intention to abide by the assessment or reassessment sought to be reviewed, that that order was not challenged by the assessee-firm, that it was subsequently on 27th March, 1968, that an application was made for the refund of the excess amount, that that application was rejected on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected the tax at the last stage and on that aspect of the matter no review was called for. In view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhawani Cotton Mills case[1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.). , even the stage had to be found out; but rightly the assesseefirm informed the Assessing Authority that it was liable to pay the tax as the same had been collected at the last stage. The reply, when read as a whole, does not show that the assessee-firm showed its intention to abide by the assessment or reassessment sought to be reviewed and in this respect the Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, has rightly held that the view that the assessee-firm had not consented to the review of assessment under section 11AA and the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
