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

1998 (2) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de on extraneous consideration as the said stock did not acquire the character of the last purchase. The revisional order at annexure III against the order of assessment is also challenged. 2.. By the impugned order of assessment a further demand to the tune of Rs. 16,706 being Rs. 15,072 on account of tax and Rs. 1,634 on account of interest was made in addition to the admitted tax already paid to the extent of Rs. 11,676. 3.. There was a revision before the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and the Joint Commissioner by order dated October 23, 1994 rejected the revision. The order of assessment is annexure I to the writ application and the order of revision is annexure III to the writ application. 4.. The brief facts are as follows: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I have heard Shri G.K. Joshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri K.H. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the respondents. An affidavit-inopposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Joshi contended as follows: (1) Stock and purchase of paddy which did not acquire the character of last purchase and is not liable to be taxed under the provisions of section 3(A) of the Act. It cannot be deemed to be turnover. (2) The question of onus which was raised in the order of revision was not considered by the assessment authority and the revisional authority unnecessarily considered the question of onus. Onus was duly discharged by disclosing the stock of unmi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emained unmilled till June' 93 must be taken for assessment of tax in this period. There is no scope for assessment hereafter. The dealer's contention of liability to tax only on the amount of paddy milled is not tenable and hence not acceptable. It is because in such a case huge amounts of taxable purchases will escape assessment resulting considerable loss of revenue." 8.. The assessing authority was of the view that all the purchase of paddy including stock remained unmilled till June, 1993 must be taken into consideration by the assessing authority for calculating the tax payable. There is no scope for assessment thereafter as because the Act itself was repealed. It was felt that if that is not assessed to tax a huge amount of payable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t be taken into consideration for determining the taxability of any purchase inside the State of declared goods. He says that the taxable event is the last purchase in the State during the assessment year and if stocks are held at the end of the assessment year it follows that the assessee holding the stocks is the last purchaser in the State. In our opinion, this reasoning is fallacious. It is true that sections 3 and 4 speak of "a year", i.e., the financial year, and it is only the turnover during that year that is liable to taxation in the hands of the assessee, but section 4 has to be read with the Second Schedule, and reading section 4 with the Second Schedule, it seems to us clear that a dealer is not liable to pay a tax on the purc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Padinjarakara Agencies [1985] 60 STC 308 (SC). There the question was that what will be the rate of tax before 30th of June, 1974 inasmuch as the rate of tax was raised subsequent to 30th of June, 1974. The earlier rate of tax was 3 per cent and it was raised to 5 per cent and the question which arose was what is the point of last purchase to determine the rate of tax and the Supreme Court relying on the earlier case stated that equally it is clear that the assessee could not be made liable to the tax on the purchase made by it prior to 30th June, 1974 unless the purchases made by it acquired the quality of last purchase. 11.. This being the position, this writ applicati .....

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