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

1995 (1) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e decision of this Court in Sadak Thamby Co.'s case [1969] 24 STC 468 the assessing officer held that this closing stock of raw hides and skins, i.e., 3,486 pieces valued at Rs. 78,905.15 is liable to tax at 3 per cent as falling under item 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Accordingly the assessing officer revised the assessment and levied the tax as stated above. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment made by the assessing officer. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aw hides alone were valued and considered for assessment. The remaining 3,486 pieces were kept under various process of tanning. The assessing officer following the decision of this Court in [1969] 24 STC 468 (L.M.S. Sadak Thamby Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) revised the assessment and in the revised assessment the sale value of 3,486 pieces were also taxed at 3 per cent. This was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. On further appeal the Tribunal pointed out that the assessing officer was justified in taxing the last purchase of raw hides. It also pointed out that at the same time the assessing officer cannot again tax the same as the sale of the dressed hides under item 7(b) in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s and skins locally to the extent of Rs. 6,72,917.11 (13,551 pieces). Out of 13,551 pieces 1,260 pieces have already suffered purchase tax in the hands of the dealers during the year 1975-76-raw hides 1,260 pieces and skins kept as closing stock as on March 31, 1976, was assessed to tax in the assessment order for 1975-76 and the purchase value of Rs. 22,614.65. Therefore, their proportionate sale value of Rs. 61,740 valued at Rs. 49 per piece was deducted from the sales of tanned hides (local) and the remaining sale of 12,291 pieces to the tune of Rs. 6,11,177.11 was assessed to tax at 1 per cent single point as first sales of tanned hides and skins in this State. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessment on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Mad.) the assessing officer has levied tax on the disputed turnover. There were also sales of hides and skins to unregistered dealers with regard to 10 pieces. The assessing officer has made an ad hoc addition for probable omission of Rs. 4,000. In the absence of separate accounts with detailed particulars the addition was sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 9.. However, on appeal the Tribunal held that once the tax was levied under item 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act the same goods shall not be taxed as the dressed hides under item 7(b). According to the Tribunal, this appears to have happened in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remitted back the same with a direction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same raw hides and skins are tanned in the State and sold during the accounting year as dressed hides and skins, the same will not be taxable under item 7(b). Therefore, the assessing officer was justified in taxing the last purchase of raw hides, but, at the same time he was not aware of the fact that the same item was taxed as dressed hides under item 7(b) in the subsequent year. The Tribunal pointed out that this has happened in the present case. It remains to be seen that the assessing officer revised the assessment in the assessment year 1974-75 and he did not revise the assessment for the subsequent year 1975-76. Therefore, according to the Tribunal there was double taxation. In order to avoid this the Tribunal set aside the assessmen .....

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