9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated December 31, 2005 relating to the assessment year 1998-99. The applicant was engaged in the manufacture and sales of rice. Paddy is the raw material. Paddy was liable to tax at the point of first purchase under section 3D of the Act. Applicant purchased the paddy and paid the tax being first purchaser and out of the paddy manufactured ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjustment of Rs. 3,50,070 with the amount of tax of Rs. 5,74,514.72 payable on the sale of RFC. The total amount of tax payable on the sale of RFC was held at Rs. 2,24,444.72. Applicant realised the tax from the RFC to the extent of Rs. 4,44,844.40 and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 2,20,399.68. Refund was refused by the assessing authority and the amount has been forfeited under section 29( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has realised lesser tax from the RFC and not the excess tax. He further submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,20,339.68 has become excess amount because the applicant has paid the tax on the purchases of paddy, therefore, the excess amount should be returned to the applicant as the tax has been paid on the paddy, it cannot be treated as excess realisation of tax from RFC. Learned Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and the authorities below. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Under section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, dealer was entitled for the adjustment of the amount of tax paid on the paddy with the amount of tax payable on the rice. Liability of tax on the paddy was on the dealer being the first purchaser of the paddy. There is no provision fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
