TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Holy Trinity School, Kanjikode in Kerala which was not accounted as local sales nor tax paid by the petitioner. Therefore a penalty of Rs. 75,800 was imposed on the petitioner treating the entire transaction as unaccounted sales. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner acted as an agent of the manufacturer and there was no purchase and resale of the articles by the petitioner. On the other hand, the department proceeded on the presumption that the petitioner purchased the articles in his own account and resold the goods to the school. There is also a finding by the authorities below that the manufacturer's ledger account shows direct sale to M/s. Vijaya Electricals, that is the petitioner's concern. 2.. At the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the sale proceeds to his principal, at another rate, or (ii) to have purchased the goods at one rate and to have passed them on to his principal at another rate, or (iii) not to have accounted to his principal for the entire collections or deductions made by him in the sales or purchases effected by him on behalf of his principal, or (iv) to have acted for a fictitious or non-existent principal: Provided that the deduction or addition, as the case may be, of the commission agreed upon and specified in the accounts and incidental charges incurred by the agent which are specified in the accounts and which the assessing authority considers legitimate shall not be deemed to be a difference in the rates referred to in subclauses ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and at this distance of time I do not think, the petitioner should be given one more opportunity to procure evidence to substantiate his contention. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475 and in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 232. According to the petitioner the transaction being inter-State sale, there is no attempt to evade tax and the penalty imposed is therefore unsustainable. The legal proposition canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner is a settled position of law and there is no dispute about that. However, the question that remains is whether on the facts inter-State s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
