9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no proof was produced by the assessee to establish that they were inter-State purchases of cotton, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, accepted the contention and deleted the said turnover, accepting the return submitted by the assessee. Subsequently on the ground that certain turnover has escaped assessment, the assessing officer invoked his jurisdiction under section 16 and after issuing notices and calling for objections, revised the assessment including a sum of Rs. 2,29,999.23 as a taxable turnover. But on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that it was an inter-State purchase not liable to tax in Tamil Nadu and, accordingly, set aside the revised assessment on 31st July, 1972. The facts relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner however held that it was an inter-State purchase not liable to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and, accordingly, set aside the revised assessment. The Board of Revenue took suo motu revision of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, after issuing notice add hearing the assessee, held that the loan transaction was a make-belief arrangement and that there was a sale. However, it was of the view that the sale could be said to have taken place not in July, 1968, when the original arrangement between the parties was entered into in pursuance of which the goods were transported from Bombay to Coimbatore, but on the date when the sum of Rs. 2,29,999.23 deposited was forfeited by the Bombay mills. The Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suo motu proceedings were not barred by limitation. But he questions the finding of the Board that the transaction was a sale and much less a local sale, which could be subjected to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. As already stated the finding of the assessing officer in the revised assessment proceedings as well as that of the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue was that the loan transaction was a make-belief arrangement and it was not a real loan transaction. If these findings were not accepted, then unless a subsequent agreement of sale and purchase was found, the transaction by either efflux of time or breach of agreement could not be held to have become a sale transaction. On the failure of the assessee to retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and on the finding that the goods were not moved on the basis of loan transaction, we have necessarily to hold that the movement of the goods were occasioned under the contract of sale entered into in July, 1968, before the movement of the goods especially when the amount deposited is accepted to be the exact market price of 76 bales of cotton despatched. We are unable to agree with the finding of the Board of Revenue that the sale transaction should be deemed to have taken place on the date when the forfeiture took place and not on the date when the goods actually moved from Bombay to Coimbatore. We may also state that there is no evidence of any subsequent agreement of sale and that was not even the case of the revenue. We, accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
