9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o declare the action of the respondents in demanding and collecting sales tax from them on the royalty and extraction charges paid for the supply of bamboo and hardwood to them from the forest for the period 1978-79 onwards as illegal, null and void and for a consequential relief of refund of the taxes so collected from them. 2. The admitted facts are that the appellants entered into an agreement on March 27, 1978 with the State Government for supply of bamboo and hardwood from the Government forest on certain terms and condition. The Sales Tax Department demanded and collected sales tax upon the value of the bamboo and hardwood removed by the appellants from the forest. Under the State Sales Tax Act, during the relevant period the commodi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsumer, which would disentitle them from seeking refund of the sales tax already paid. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court denying the relief of refund, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. 5.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court was not right in presuming that the appellants must have passed on the burden of tax to the consumers. He invited our attention to the case of the respondents advanced before the High Court. The High Court has observed thus : "He (the Government Pleader) submits that in the case of the this petitioner the demand is not upon the petitioner but upon the Forest Department as seller of the goods. He submits that according to the definition of the `d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions in question were not exigible to tax. The refund was, however, denied on the ground that the appellants must be deemed to have passed on the liability to the consumer. 9. We find that the High Court was not right in so presuming in the light of the case put forward by the Government Pleader as extracted above. The appellants have reimbursed a tax liability which was on the Forest Department and the appellants have consumed the goods for manufacturing paperboards, etc. Therefore, the question of the appellants passing on the tax liability to the consumer, on the facts of this case, would not arise. Consequently, the appellants are entitled for refund of the tax collected from them, not for the entire period but for the period comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
