TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover of Rs. 3,72,35,714 relating to inter-branch transfers. That was accepted and the third respondent passed a revised order on May 31, 2000, confirming the assessment for the balance taxable turnover. The taxable turnover mentioned in the revised order of assessment for a sum of Rs. 88,25,405 was disputed as it does not relate to inter-State sales. This turnover represents sale effected in other States through its own commission agents who had tendered sales pattials, etc. Therefore, this turnover is beyond the purview of taxing provision in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (iii) The petitioner despatched the goods to their agents in the other States for sale on their behalf. It is the agent who has to pay tax on such sales in the other States. When no inter-State sales have been taken place, it is not taxable. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent against the impugned order dated May 31, 2000. Second respondent by order dated September 14, 2001 dismissed the appeal holding that the revision was only with respect to a turnover of Rs. 3,72,35,714 only and the petitioner had not filed any appeal against the original order of assessment dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lore not 3,72,35,714 at 8 per cent covered by form F declaration (d) Taxable turnover 4,72,07,862 (e) Add: Exemption allowed on 13,23,57,039 stock transfer covered by form F declaration and highseas sales Total turnover determined 17,95,64,901 (ii) Subsequent to this dealers filed F declarations relating to the transactions to the tune of Rs. 3,72,35,714. The respondent allowed the exemption on the said turnover. Therefore, the taxable turnover was redetermined as follows: Inter-State sales covered by 11,46,743 at 4 per cent C form Consignment form not covered 88,25,405 at 8 per cent by F form declaration Taxable turnover redetermined 99,72,148 (iii) The second respondent dismissed the appeal filed against this order holding that the revision of the assessment made on May 31, 2000 was only in respect of turnover of Rs. 3,72,35,714; it also held that the dealers had not filed any appeal against the original assessment dated March 24, 2000. The dealers' claim for exemption over the turnover of Rs. 88,25,405 as consignment sales was rightly disallowed as the original assessment became final. Against that order, the petitioners filed second appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock transfer to Bangalore were already verified. The form F declaration now filed are in order and hence exemption on stock transfer value of Rs. 3,72,35,714 to Bangalore branch is allowed. Accordingly, I revise the assessment of the dealers for the year 1997-98 under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 55 of the TNGST Act and redetermine their total and taxable turnover of the dealers for the year 1997-98 at Rs. 17,95,64,901 and Rs. 99,72,148 respectively taxable." 5.. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a revised order by which the taxable turnover was redetermined under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 55 of the TNGST Act. Therefore, it is the revised order of the original assessment order. When the order is revised, it merges with the original order and an appeal can be filed against the revision order. Under the circumstances, the non-filing of the appeal against the original order is not detrimental to the petitioner. Therefore, in the appeal against that order when documents were produced to satisfy that Rs. 88,25,405 was sale through its own commission agents and therefore it was not inter-State sale and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is that once an assessment is reopened, the initial order for assessment ceases to be operative. The effect of reopening the assessment is to vacate or set aside the initial order for assessment and to substitute in its place the order made on reassessment. The initial order for reassessment cannot be said to survive, even partially, although the justification for reassessment arises because of turnover escaping assessment in a limited field or only with respect to a part of the matter covered by the initial assessment order. The result of reopening the assessment is that a fresh order for reassessment would have to be made including for those matters in respect of which there is no allegation of the turnover escaping assessment. ............ What is true of the assessment must also be true of reassessment because reassessment is nothing but a fresh assessment. When reassessment is made under section 19, the former assessment is completely reopened and in its place fresh assessment is made. While reassessing a dealer, the assessing authority does not merely assess him on the escaped turnover......." Pages 642 and 644 referred to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners were finally assessed for the year 1997-98, for a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 17,95,64,901 and Rs. 4,72,07,862 respectively under the Act in proceedings cited as below: "The dealers have filed form F for Rs. 3,72,35,714 towards stock transfer to Bangalore branch and requested to revise the assessment. The supporting records for proving movement of goods on stock transfer to Bangalore were already verified. Form F declaration now filed are in order and hence exemption on stock transfer value of Rs. 3,72,35,714 to Bangalore branch is allowed. Accordingly, I revise the assessment of the dealers." Though it is termed as "revised" order in subsistence, it is not a revised order, but it only allowing exemption on production of documents (F forms) which enable them to get exemption. The original order has been modified granting this exemption. Therefore, it is not a revised order or rectified order of assessment. The impugned order also refers to this aspect clearly. This order passed by the third respondent dated May 31, 2000 was the only order passed under section 9(2) of the CST Act. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
