TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Revenue when the assessee after legally collecting the tax from purchasers withheld the same?" M/s. Shri Gopal Industries Ltd., Kota (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), was dealing in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. While considering the return for the period 1st July, 1965, to 30th June, 1966, the assessing authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,000 under section 16(1)(i) of the Act for collecting sales tax on sales of cotton waste and not depositing the same in the State treasury. On appeal by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the amount of penalty by Rs. 975 only and the rest of the penalty was maintained. The assessee then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and a learned single Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s all along paying sales tax on the sale of cotton waste and without any valid reason kept the sales tax for the period 1st July, 1965, to 30th June, 1966, with him, though he had collected the same from the customers. The assessee could not have kept the amount of sales tax with him and the question that sales tax was chargeable on sale of cotton waste, was well-settled and in these circumstances, there was no question of any bonafide on the part of the assessee in not depositing the amount of sales tax in time. It was also contended that the Board of Revenue in its order dated 27th February, 1980, did not consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that the assessee was paying the sales tax on sales of cotton ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. Section 16(1)(i) of the Act, at the relevant time, was as follows: "Fraudulently evades or avoids the payment of tax or conceals his liability to tax." The Board found that the assessee had not concealed any facts in the return filed by him, on the contrary the transactions in question were clearly included in the statement furnished by him and he was claiming deductions under rule 29. Nothing was concealed by the assessee and all the facts including the transactions in question were shown in the return and it was for the assessing authority to allow deductions or not under rule 29 as claimed by the assessee. It was observed by a Division Bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , was normally sold, and in the circumstances, an intention to carry on business of selling the subsidiary product as a part or an incident of the business of the assessees might be inferred and the transaction of sale might be regarded as an activity in the course of the business of the assessees. However, the question which calls for determination in the case before us is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, any question of law arises if a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has dicided the question of fact in favour of the assessee that there was no fraudulent evasion or avoidance of the payment of tax by the assessee. In the present case, the Board of Revenue in its order dated 27th February, 1980, after considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
