Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (10) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be held that the sale made by the petitioner to its various branches in various parts of the country was not a sale but only a stock transfer? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was bound to follow the earlier Division Bench decision of the Board of Revenue in the case of this very petitioner based on the same facts, and whether the Tribunal could take a different view without, in any manner, holding that the earlier decision of the Board of Revenue was not correct? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, purchase tax was leviable from the petitioner even though the goods had been purchased from a registered dealer and had been sold in the course of inter-State trade after o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent, the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the assessee is liable for purchase tax under section 5-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act in respect of the purchases of goods so made and the goods transferred outside the State of Rajasthan. Besides tax of Rs. 1,37,752 penalty of Rs. 35,000 under section 16(1)(k) was also levied. The main contention of the assessee was that the provisions of section 5-A are not applicable because the head office and the branch are separately registered. So far as this question is concerned, even in a State there may be a provision for registration of the head office as well as branch office separately. There may be provision under law by which one registration is sufficient to cover the business .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t case looking to the nature of transactions, there cannot be sale and the transfer of goods by the assessee outside the State cannot be considered to be a sale. The Sales Tax Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the goods were transferred to the head office outside the State and, therefore, it is not a sale. The submission of "C" form could not convert a transaction of non-sale to a sale. "C" form may be issued under mistake or wrong interpretation of law or may be for taking wrong advantage of concessional rate of tax. The submission of "C" form, therefore, is not the determinative factor for the nature of transaction that it is the inter-State sale, more particularly when the fact that the goods were transferred by the assessee to it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... merce, then there would be liability of purchase tax unless it has specifically been exempted. In the present case, liability which has been fixed is by virtue of the proviso to section 2(s), which during the relevant time provided as under: "Provided further that when any dealer has purchased any goods without paying any tax or after paying tax at concessional or reduced rate of tax on the strength of any declaration furnished by him under the Act and such goods are used by him for any purpose other than the one mentioned in the declaration, the purchase price of such goods shall be included in his taxable turnover......... " It is by virtue of this proviso that the purchase price of the assessee has to be included in the taxable turno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, the Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter and came to the conclusion that the explanation which was given by the assessee was that he treated this transaction as inter-State sale and "C" form was also submitted. The facts which have been found above do not justify such a conclusion. The Tribunal has found that the penalty to the extent of Rs. 5,000 is leviable. The use of the goods for the different purposes than the declared one is evident from the observations made above and whether failure was with or without reasonable cause, is a question of fact. The Tribunal on the basis of the facts which were submitted, has taken a view that the penalty has to be reduced. The reduction could have been to any extent and therefore, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates