TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo revision petitions have been preferred by the revenue against the common order dated 27.08.1998 as passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer whereby the Tax Board has dismissed its similar appeals preferred against the common order dated 24.02.1995 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur in the respective appeals preferred by the dealers. Having been preferred against the common order and involving a similar question, these revision petitions have been heard together; and are taken for disposal by this common order. The aspects relevant for determination of the question involved in the matter are that while making assessments for the financial year 1990-91 in respect of the non-petitioners dealers, the Assessing Authority observed that certain handicrafts items were purchased by the dealers for re-sale under Form ST-17 but were sold for the purpose of exports under Form ST-17B and, on the opinion that the purchase on Form ST-17 was not for exports, the Assessing Authority issued notice to the dealers as to why purchase tax be not imposed; and, for want of a plausible reply, the Assessing Authority proceeded to impose 10% purchase tax and interest thereupon in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification dated 07.03.1990 in the impugned order but its correct date, admittedly, is 07.03.1994). Aggrieved, the Department has preferred these two revision petitions and it is submitted that the result as given out by the two Appellate Authorities had been that tax had not been paid at any point and that would be in violation of the Act of 1954 and against the legislative philosophy behind the laws of sales and purchase tax. With reference to the notifications dated 01.12.1986 and 07.03.1994, it is submitted that the learned Appellate Authorities have not properly looked at the meaning and purport of the same; and reliance on the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1650/1993 has also been misplaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the fact that the goods were procured by the non-petitioners without payment of tax under Form ST-17 and that carried specific declaration that the goods would be taxable at the last point. According to the learned counsel, the declaration was definitely violated when the goods are attempted to be sold under Form ST-17B. It is submitted that avoidance of tax by the dealers in this manner cannot be coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax payable under S.5 of the Act on the sale of goods manufactured in Rajasthan by any manufacturer holding a certificate of registration under the Act shall be at the following points, namely:- (a) When sale is made by such manufacturer to (1) an unregistered dealer, (2) a consumer, (3) a registered dealer for purposes other than sale within the State or sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, or (4) a registered dealer who is entitled to claim exemption under S.4(2) of the Act on the sale of such goods within the State, at the point of sale by the manufacturer himself; and (b) When sale is made by such manufacturer to a registered dealer for purposes of sale within the State, whether or not to a deptt. of the State or Central Govt., on which tax under the Act either at full rate or otherwise or at the rate according to [Ss.5C and 5CC] of the Act is paid, or sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce on which tax under the CST Act, 1956, is paid, at the point of sale by such registered dealer on the condition that he undertakes to pay such tax and a declaration, which shall be furnished to the AA to that effect in form ST 17 prescribed under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny person or class of persons on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be specified. Existing such position, when the State Government proceeded to consciously issue the notification dated 07.03.1994, it cannot be said that the benefits thereunder would not be available for the purchases made under ST-17. There is no such indication available that the notification dated 07.03.1994 was restrictive in its operation or that it was not intended to be available for the purchases made under ST-17. If the notification dated 07.03.1994 was intended to be restrictive or inapplicable for the purchases made under ST-17, such a relevant aspect would have been, and was rather required to be, spelt out specifically. Instead and other way round, the said notification has only provided that any tax on the purchase of the said goods, if charged or collected, shall be paid to the State Government and if paid to the Government would not be refunded. On a plain reading of the notification dated 07.03.1994, the intention is manifest that on the purchases of goods as made by a registered dealer upto 31.03.1995, the levy of purchase tax was exempted if the goods were sold in the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
