TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahar, Rajasthan under two railway receipts dated July 18, 1969 and November 3, 1969. M/s. Mangal Chand Bhanwar Lal sold these consignments of cement to the non-petitioner firm and for that purpose made the endorsement on the railway receipts. The sale consideration was Rs. 21,988.54 on which the sales tax was paid at the rate of ten per cent. The petitioner, the assessing authority, framed the assessment order for the year 1969-70 on January 31, 1972 and concluded that the non-petitioner firm had paid sales tax at the wrong point. Instead, it should have paid tax on the sale of cement by it to its consumers. The non-petitioner firm preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who on February 17, 1973 found himself in agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the sale of the two consignments of cement made by M/s. Mangalchand Bhanwar Lal and Company, Sardarshahar to M/s. Madanmohan Nandmohan of Jaipur was the first point of sale in the series of successive sales of the same commodity in Rajasthan. (2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if it is held that Rajasthan sales tax was paid on the sale of two consignments of white cement by M/s. Mangalchand Bhanwar Lal at a wrong point or earlier to the first point, then whether the assessee is liable to make payment of Rajasthan sales tax at the proper point of sale on the difference between his purchase price and the proceeds of the sale effected by him to his customers. 3.. Nobody has appeared for and on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Union of India [1996] 102 STC 373 (SC), wherein it was laid down that where a question arises in which State is the tax leviable it shall be leviable in the State from which the movement of goods commences in view of the provisions contained in section 9(1) read with section 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act. It has been mentioned hereinabove that we are not concerned here with the matter under the C.S.T. Act because it is a case neither of the department nor of the non-petitioner-firm. 5.. The main controversy in this case revolves round the question whether the non-petitioner firm paid tax at ten per cent at a point prior to the first point of sale which it was required to do under section 5 of the R.S.T. Act read with rule 15 of the Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purposes of this rule, the first point in the series of sale shall mean the first sale in such series by a registered dealer and the second and subsequent points shall be determined accordingly while the last point in the series of such sale shall be the last sale in such series to an unregistered dealer or a consumer or, to a registered dealer for purposes other than resale within the State, or in case of goods specified by the State Government, the last point in such series shall also be the last sale to a registered dealer in whose registration certificate such goods are recorded for resale by him to an unregistered dealer or a consumer." 6.. Having come to the conclusion that the sales tax is to be paid at the first point of sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
