Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC53Tribunal
1. This is an appeal from an order may by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division, Administration, Bombay, on the 1st October, 1959, upon an application made by the appellants on 2nd May, 1959.2. The appellants applied to the Additional Collector of Sales Tax to determine under Section 27 of the Act whether a preparation called super-mindif falls within Entry 6 of Schedule A to the Act of 1953. The entry in question is as follows : Cattle-feeds including fodder and other concentrates but excluding cotton seed 3. If super-mindif falls within Entry 6 of Schedule A there can be no question that it is not subject to the payment of tax, because, Schedule A deals with what is called tax-free goods. If, on the other hand, super-mindif does not fall within Entry 6 it follows that it would be subject to the payment of sales tax.4. The view which the Additional Collector has taken is that the tax is payable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Amended) on the sale of super-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC50Tribunal
1. These three applications which raise a common question may be disposed of by a common judgment and it would be sufficient to mention the facts in Revision Application No. 347 of 1959.2. The applicants are a partnership firm who do business under the name and style of Messrs Shah Manekchand Kundanmal & Co. The period of assessment is from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955 and in respect of this period the applicants were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in the manner set out in his order dated 21st February, 1958. The applicants pre-ferred appeal from that order to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who, by his order dated 23rd February, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Sales Tax Officer. From the appellate order the applicants went in revision before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay and that authority by his judgment dated 14th July, 1959, confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector. It is the correctness of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC48Tribunal
1. This application is preferred against an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision) II, Bombay, on the 27th April, 1959. The facts of the case are these: The applicants are Messrs Pearl & Co., which are a partnership firm. The firm, it is said, is composed of two partners, one of whom is one Dr.L.S. Desai. The firm has business premises which are used also by Dr.Desai as a medical practitioner. The way in which the business is conducted seems to be that Dr. Desai examines patients to whom he gives prescriptions and those prescriptions are presented to the Pearl & Co., which sells the medicines.2. For the period from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer, while assessing the firm, included in the. turnover of the firm the receipts from the prescriptions and the question which Mr.Mehta for the applicants has raised is whether the receipt of Rs. 6,998-8-0 are taxable in the hands of the applicants 3. Now, as regar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC33Tribunal
1. This is a revision application against an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division, (Revision), Bombay, on the28th April, 1959 and the point raised on behalf of the applicants by Mr. Patel is that the applicants were not liable to pay the purchase tax under Section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.The facts which have a bearing upon the question seem to be these.2. The applicants had business in waste paper and rags. The period of assessment with which this case is concerned is from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955. The applicants do not maintain any regular books of account. When the Sales, Tax Officer had to deal with the assessment he held that the applicants were liable to pay the purchase tax under Section 10 (a) of the Act and directed that a sum of Rs. 1,639-14-0 should be recovered from the applicants. This order was questioned by the applicants before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who agreed with the conclusion of the Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC36Tribunal
1. This is a revisional application against an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay, on 28th April, 1959 and the short question which arises is whether the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax was right in summarily rejecting the appeal preferred by the applicants before him.2. The matter arises this way. An appeal was filed before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax against an assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Licence Circle, Bombay. The order related to a period between 1st April, 1955 and 31st March, 1956. The appeal was admitted and this is not in dispute. It was fixed for hearing on 31st July, 1958. On that date the applicants attended, but it appears that the papers of the case were not available so that the applicants did all that they could do in the circumstances by attending on the date of hearing before the appellate authority. The case then stood adjourned to 10th September, 1958. On this date the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC39Tribunal
1. These are two revisional applications preferred by Messrs Indian Vegetable Products Ltd., which raise a common question and the question arises in this way.2. The applicants made certain sales and the sale price included an item called railway freight. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that the price realised by the applicants after deduction of the railway freight constitutes the sale price for the purpose of assessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (unamended), arid the short question is whether the amount of the railway freight is a cash discount within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. Section 2(14) defines the expression "sale price" as meaning the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to trade practice, but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at the time of or before delivery thereof, other than the cost of freight or de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC29Tribunal
1. This appeal arises from an order passed by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Northern Division, Ahmedabad, upon an application made by the appellants under Section 27(d) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (amended) and the short question is whether "hessian" comes within the classes of goods mentioned in Schedule I to the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Special Exemptions) Act, 1957.2. Section 27, so far as material, provides that if any question arises otherwise than in a proceeding before a court or a proceeding under Section 14 or 15, whether or not, for the purposes of this Act,-(d) any tax is payable in respect of any particular sale or purchase, the Collector shall make an order determining such question and the learned Additional Collector of Sales Tax held that a tax is payable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, on the sale of hessian. It is the correctness of this conclusion which Mr. Mehta for the appellants challenges on this appeal.3. Before I refer to the Bombay Sales Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC26Tribunal
1. This is an application for rectification made under Section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.2. On 14th August, 1958, this Tribunal delivered a judgment in Revision Application No. 93 of 1958 and dismissed the said application. Two points were taken in the application, as will appear from the judgment.It was contended that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the applicant by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax when a proceeding was pending before him. That contention was disposed of by the Tribunal which observed that the applicant had made seven applications for adjournment before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax the last of which was not granted. On the 30th May, 1957, the learned pleader for the applicant appeared before the Assistant Collector. It was contended before the Tribunal that it was wrong for the Assistant Collector to fix the hearing on the day in question since 30th May, 1957, was a holiday. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the Assistant Collector's of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC41Tribunal
1. This revision application has been preferred from an order made by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City Division (Revision), Bombay, on the 27th of April, 1959. The facts of the case are not seriously in dispute. The applicants purchased a certain quantity of unshelled groundnuts during the period commencing on 1st November, 1952 and ending on 31st March, 1954. In respect of this purchase the Sales Tax Authorities recovered a tax which is now the subject-matter of controversy between the parties. For the period commencing on 1st April, 1954 and ending on 31st March, 1955, the Sales Tax Authorities assessed the applicants to a tax of Rs. 63,099-10-6. It is the contention of the applicants that in respect of this amount they are entitled to a set-off in respect of the tax already paid by them for the period from 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1954. The authorities below did not accept the contention of the applicants and the point taken on behalf of the applicants i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC28Tribunal
1. In this case the only point taken by Mr. N.C. Mehta for the applicants is that the authorities below have erred in passing an order of assessment and also an order regarding penalty in the same order.His contention is that such an order was illegal and should be set aside. This point was not taken before the Sales Tax Officer, probably because the applicants did not know whether any penalty would be levied on them. On appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Officer it was contended that an officer acting under the Act cannot pass two such orders in the same order. The penalty has been levied under Section 39-A of the Act of 1953. This argument was rejected by the Assistant Collector. In revision it was again contended before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax that the order was bad in law as it had been passed under two separate sections. The Additional Collector noted that the applicants were unable to cite any authority in support of this view and he held it was permissible ...
Tag this Judgment!