9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admission of this Tax Case (Revision), the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration:- (i) Whether the Petitioner had sold the damaged refractory bricks at a lesser price to third parties on the assurance given by their principal that any loss incurred will be compensated and the loss amount was received by way of rising debit note whether such amount can be treated as sale amount and can be taxed? (ii) Whether the principles laid down in the decision reported in 79 STC 92, wherein it was held "The correspondence exchanged between the parties regarding the quantity of the yearn and the consequential reduction of the price showed that the price payable by the customers was only at the reduced rate. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93/- and the penalty of Rs.2,363/-. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 28.07.1997. As against the same, the assessee filed T.A.No. 807 of 1997 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the sale effected by the assessee had to be construed as a deemed sale and the sale price had to be determined with reference to the initial cost price and selling price fixed by the Principal to the Agent. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal. As against this, the present Tax Case Revision is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no sales omission at all as pointed out by the assessing authority. The Refractory Bricks sent to Vyline Glass Works Limited Chennai were not ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transaction in question is a genuine transaction which is evident from the correspondence exchanged between the assessee with their principal; that there is absolutely no case made out by the Department that there were sales omission and therefore he prayed for allowing this revision petition. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would support the order passed by the Tribunal by contending that the assessee effected the sale only on behalf of their principal and further, those damaged bricks were taken to their stock and the assessee had the opening stock of refractory bricks to the extent of Rs,4,57,610/-. There was no purchase during 1994-1995 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of orders placed by M/s. Vyline Glass Works Limited, on 11.03.1992, M/s. Orissa Industries Limited had despatched refractory brick to M/s. Vyline Glass Works Limited directly, however, during the course of transit, the bricks got damaged and M/s. Vyline Glass Works Limited refused to take delivery of the damaged goods. Therefore, M/s. Orissa Industries Limited instructed the assessee to take delivery of the goods and assured to compensate the losses, if any, they might incur. Subsequently, M/s. Vyline Glass Works Limited, Chennai, approached the Principals for supply of some bricks lying with the assessee for their urgent need and accordingly, out of 83 bricks, they have selected 10 bricks of various sizes with lesser damage for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
