9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer has rejected the claim of exemption on the turnover of sales of tanned skins on the ground that the same was not sold to U.P. dealers in the course of export and as such the turnover was not liable for exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Form H was produced by the dealer in support of the claim. This plea of the dealer was not accepted by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal and the levy of tax has been confirmed under section 3AAAA up to the Tribunal stage. However, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the assessing officer, demanding interest under section 8(1) of the Act. The present revision is directed against this portion of the order of the Tribunal. Heard the counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment and submitted that in each case the bona fide of the assessee shall have to be examined and "so long as the calculation is honest and fair the dealer shall not incur any liability to pay interest". The said sentence in my view has been pressed in the present case totally out of context. In the case of Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. [1982] 50 STC 56 (All); [1980] UPTC 1320, the court was examining the question of levy of interest with reference to section 8 of the Act when there is a change in rate of tax on account of subsequent judicial pronouncement or retrospective amendment in the rate of tax. However, in that very case in para 12 it was held that if the dealer claims that it is not liable to pay tax or liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422; [1994] UPTC 893, and submitted that it is difficult for an assessee to predict the final assessment and expect him to pay the tax on that basis to avoid the liability to pay interest. That would be asking him to do near impossible. The Supreme Court in that case has considered the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and interpreted the expression "tax payable" under sub-section (2), (2A) of section 7 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The controversy involved before the Supreme Court in that case was that the dealer did not accept freight as part of the price of cement and did not deposit the tax. Subsequently the Supreme Court in another case cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates. He did not and cannot plead ignorance of the change in the rate of tax, effected two years earlier. In the case in hand, there is also no dispute about the rate of tax or classification of goods. Therefore, on facts, the present case is nearer to the facts of Qureshi Crucibles Centre case [1993] 89 STC 467 (SC); [1993] UPTC 901. Learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party has placed reliance upon another judgment of Supreme Court given in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation [2002] 127 STC 258; [1999] UPTC 1. The said judgment is distinguishable as there was classification dispute with regard to commodity which is ordinarily resolved in assessment proceeding and if resolved against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
