TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the petitioner without giving the benefit of the exemption limit on the taxable turnover on the ground that the dealer-petitioner got himself registered voluntarily. 2.. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the department that the respondent himself applied for the registration, he is liable to pay the tax on the entire amount of the taxable turnover and he is not entitled to deduct the amount of exemption as mentioned in section 3 from the taxable turnover. 3.. The learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and also of the learned Member of the Tax Board. He contended that there was nothing in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 particularly sections 3, 5 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discriminatory, and against the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any substance in the application for revision. 5.. Accordingly, the application for revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. R.K. NAIR (Technical Member).-I concur in the main with the conclusions of the honourable Chairman. It is necessary I feel to describe the facts of the case and the details of the notifications relevant to our present purposes in greater detail to better appreciate the context in which the issue before us arose. I also consider it necessary in order not to fall prey to terminological inexactitude to employ only the nomenclature and terminology employed by the Act, Rules and the notifications. Hence these few ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (72)/FD. Gr. IV/ 87-60 dated August 31, 1987 by which, with immediate effect, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 5 of the 1954 Act notified that halwais, keepers of hotels, restaurants, refreshment rooms and other eating establishments, tea stalls, Dhaba or tandoorwalas, shall pay tax on their taxable turnover at the following scale: (1) Those whose annual gross turnover does not exceed rupees one lac*. Nil (2) Those whose annual gross turnover exceeds rupees one lac , for every completed five thousand rupees of taxable turnover. 250 i.e., 5% This was raised to Rs. 300, i.e., 6 per cent with effect from March 8, 1988. This was raised to Rs. 1,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely in goods produced or manufactured by such society without the aid of hired labour 70,000 (c) in the case of a dealer not falling in clause (a) or clause (b) 1,00,000 shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on his taxable turnover if his taxable turnover exceeds Rs. 5,000 in the previous year. 12. Clause (f) of section 2 of the 1954 Act defines "dealer" and does not talk of registration and the relevant portion reads as under: "(f) 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or otherwise or making, sales as defined in clause 2(o) whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st January to 31st December (inclusive). His annual gross turnover for the following calendar years was: Rs. 1987 42,813 1988 49,172 18. In the year 1987 for the period from January 1, 1987 till August 30, 1987, the notification of April 26, 1972 would be applicable while the notification of August 31, 1987 would be applicable for the remaining period of 1987 and for the whole of 1988. 19. The respondent denied liability to tax under the notifications referred to. The assessing authority took the view that a dealer who voluntarily obtains registration could not avail of these notifications and was liable to tax irrespective of turnover. He accordingly assessed the respondent to tax as follows: 1987 : Rs. 2,141 being tax at 5 per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd "appears" is being used advisedly, as in fact, he has decided it incorrectly. For the period covered by the notification of August 31, 1987 the error is not apparent as the annual gross turnover was less than Rs. 1,00,000. For the earlier 8 months period covered by the notification of April 26, 1972 as the gross turnover exceeded the exempted limit pro rata he subjected the entire turnover to tax. This clearly shows that the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that if the gross turnover exceeded the limits exempted the gross turnover was taxable. He did not distinguish between taxable turnover and gross turnover and held that only if the gross turnover was within the exempted limits was it not taxable. This was incorrect. If for the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
