TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orth Rs. 2,15,728 to various registered dealers and an assessment was duly made on 6th October, 1977 by respondent No. 2 and the tax was paid. It is alleged that these sales were liable to concessional rate of tax as the sales were made to registered dealers who had given declarations under form XII-A which were submitted with the return and therefore, concessional rate of tax was imposed on these sales. In February, 1981 a demand was affixed on the premises of the petitioner from which he learnt that the assessments have been reopened under section 19 of the Act and a demand of Rs. 10,786 has been made. The petitioner applied for a copy of the order and preferred a revision before respondent No. 3 under section 39 of the Act. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings were taken under section 19(l) for reopening of the assessment. It is further contended that rule 20-A(1)(v) could be given retrospective operation only if the purchasing dealer had submitted an application for compounding by payment of Rs. 100 but as the purchasing dealer had made no such application, the question of giving restrospective benefit to the petitioner does not arise. In the return, reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Lalloobhai B. Patel Co. Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 146 (FB); 1976 (9) VKN 125 (FB). 4.. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the full Bench decision the rules have been amended and the amended rule 20-A(1)(v) clearly provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax at the concessional rate under clause (a) of sub-section (2) or under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 6 on sales of raw material or incidental goods for the manufacture of tax-free goods or taxable goods as the case may be shall be levied subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely: ............................................. (v) If in any case it is found that the purchasing registered dealer has given on or after 1st January, 1974 declaration in form XII-A in respect of goods not specified as raw material or incidental goods in his registration certificate, the selling registered dealer shall not be held liable to pay any tax representing the difference between the full rate of tax and the concessional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the full rate of tax and the concessional rate of tax." It is, therefore, clear from this language used in this rule that no liability could be fastened against the selling dealer and that is what has been done against the petitionerassessee by the impugned orders, and therefore, it is clearly in contravention of rule 20-A(1)(v). 7.. It is further provided in this rule that "the purchasing registered dealer shall be liable to pay a composition fee of rupees one hundred on the payment of which the raw material or incidental goods shall, if the purchasing registered dealer is otherwise entitled to have such goods specified as raw material or incidental goods, be specified in his registration certificate with effect from the earliest date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
