9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 10, 1983. It is also directed against the appellate order dated March 21, 1987, which confirmed the assessment and also the revisional order dated March 21, 1991, passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The revision before the Tribunal below was unsuccessful. The undisputed facts are that the accounting year of the applicants was from January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979. During the whole year the total gross turnover under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, was Rs. 1,00,31,575.29, whereas such total gross turnover for the period of nine months from April 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979, was Rs. 77,56,831.38. Turnover tax was introduced with effect from April 1, 1979, by insertin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before the Assistant Commissioner and in the revision before the Tribunal below. Mr. T.N. De, learned State Representative, has submitted that the word "year" appearing in section 6B(3)(a) of the 1941 Act should be interpreted as the entire accounting year of the dealer. He has drawn our attention to the definition of "year" given in section 2(j) of the 1941 Act. As regards the second contention of Mr. Bose, Mr. De concedes that the marginal relief available under the proviso to section 6B(3) should be available to the applicants. In section 2(j), the expression "year" has been defined as the accounting year of a dealer, according to his declaration and where no such declaration is made, it should be the year commencing from the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 6B(3)(a). In our view, there is no doubt or confusion in the matter and, therefore, the principle that in case of a doubt the interpretation which is favourable should be adopted, cannot be applied in the present case. In this context, "favourable" means favourable to the assessee. As regards the second contention of Mr. Bose, Mr. T.N. De, learned State Representative has conceded that the marginal relief available under the proviso to section 6B(3) of the 1941 Act should have been given to the applicants. On the basis of that concession and also on an interpretation of the said proviso, we are of the opinion that the authorities below fell into an error by not extending the relief under the said proviso to the applicants. In our view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
