Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 196011STC23Tribunal
1. This is an application for revision against the order of the Additional Collector of Sales Tax dated 21st February, 1959.2. The applicant received a notice in Form XLI from the Sales Tax Officer demanding a sum of Rs. 2,348 being the tax and the penalty due on assessment for the period from 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, of the business called Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. Against this order an appeal was filed with the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Appeals), Range II, Ahmedabad, who dismissed the same. The Additional, Collector of Sales Tax who heard the revision application against the said dismissal order also confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.The facts of the case are as under:- 3. One Maganlal Talakshi was carrying on a business in the name of R.Maganlal & Co. The business was of selling bidis and Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. had the sole agency to sell bidis manufactured by Messrs Thakur Savendekar & Co. The firm of Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC547Tribunal
1. Shri Abdul Karim is a general merchant at Kosgi dealing in trunks, umbrellas, crockery, aluminium utensils,' etc. The Sales Tax Officer, Mahboobnagar, disbelieving his books of accounts estimated, to the best of his judgment, the gross turnover at Rs. 50,000, exempted turnover at Rs. 7,500, and taxable turnover at Rs. 42,500, for the year 1954-55. In appeal, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, reduced these turnovers to Rs. 35,000, Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 30,000 respectively. Against this order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Shri Abdul Karim preferred this appeal before us.2. Shri S. N. Munir, Sales Tax Practitioner, on behalf of the appellant and Shri Salahuddin, State Representative, appeared before us. Heard their arguments.3. On going through the assessment record we find that the notice dated 9th December, 1955, issued under Rule 14 to the appellant directing him to show cause why his turnover should not be determined at Rs. 35,000, was signed by the Assistant Sales T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC557Tribunal
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Sales Tax deciding an application made by the appellants under Section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The appellants sold to Messrs. Mulchand & Sons on 19th June, 1954, certain quantities of their talcum powders under the names "Roopkala Bouquet", "Roopkala Ordinary" and "Roopkala Medium". They contended that these powders should be taxed under entry 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as toilet articles, and not under entry 66 as cosmetics. These two entries are reproduced below :- Entry 39: Toilet articles except such articles as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette"- (Sales tax half anna in the rupee). Entry 66: Perfumes, depilatories and cosmetics (except hair oils)"-(Sales tax one anna in the rupee).The Collector of Sales Tax has held that the articles in question were cosmetics, and, therefore, liable to tax under entry 66.2. The question that arises ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC548Tribunal
1. Sri M. Anandam, Chartered Accountant, on behalf M/s. Satyanarayana Oil Trading Company, Gulbarga, appellant, and the Sales Tax Officer, Gulbarga, on behalf of the Sales Tax Department, appeared before us.Heard their arguments.2. M/s. Satyanarayana Oil Trading Co., Gulbarga, has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, on the following grounds, namely that: 1. The Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner erred in taxing the purchase turnover of groundnut and cotton seeds as they were not sold but were consumed in manufacturing oil. The tax is payable by a dealer or casual trader under Section 5(1) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act only when the same are re-sold. 2. To levy tax on purchases is ultra vires as the purpose of the enactment is to levy tax on sales only. 3. The Deputy Commissioner is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,000.3. Regarding items Nos. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal the learned authorised repres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC460Tribunal
1. The Sales Tax Officer assessed taxable turnover of the appellant for the year 1954-55 to be Rs. 1,73,987-15-0 and the learned Deputy Commissioner on appeal confirmed the taxable turnover to be Rs. 97,806-8-3 and ordered also to remit under Section 11(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, the sum of Rs. 1,773-1-3 said to have been collected as tax by the appellant on non-taxable commodities.The appellant has preferred this appeal before us against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate) on the following grounds, namely that: (1) the Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, erred in asking the appellant to remit under Section 11 (2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act the sum of Rs. 1,773-1-3 which he withheld out of the moneys payable to his non-resident principals under doubtful liability of the turnover to sales tax as a protective measure and entered in the suspense account. It is payable to the principals. (2) the Sales Tax Officer and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC510Tribunal
1. Shri Bhagwat Patil, Income Tax and Sales Tax Practitioner, on behalf of the appellant, and Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, on behalf of the Department, appeared. Heard their arguments.2. Shri Hiranand Ramsukh has filed this appeal against the decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, who upholding the assessment of the Sales Tax Officer ordered to remit the amount of Rs. 3,762-14-3 under Section 11(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950.3. Hiranand Ramsukh is the selling commission agent on behalf of resident and non-resident principals, in taxable and non-taxable goods.He withheld under Section 18(3) of the Act certain sums amounting to Rs. 3,513-7-0 and Rs. 249-7-3 out of the moneys payable to his non-resident and resident principals respectively, as tax under doubtful liability of the turnover to levy of sales tax under the Act.These amounts have been entered in the separate accounts of his individual constituents opened for that purpose.4. It is an admitte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC508Tribunal
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. D.R. Sambiah against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, who disallowed his appeal. Shri K.K. Chander Sekhar, Chartered Accountant, on behalf of the appellant and Sri Ram Manohar, Sales Tax Officer, 3rd Circle, State Representative, appeared before us. Heard their arguments.2. Among other varieties the appellant is a dealer in silk cloth. He contends before us that he being a second dealer in silk cloth in the State he can be taxed only at the general rate on his turnover of silk cloth and not at the additional rate, as held by the Sales Tax Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Appellate.3. The only point for consideration by us is whether the appellant is the first dealer in silk cloth in Hyderabad State and is therefore liable to pay the tax at the additional rate, under Rule 7 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act of 1950.4. Rule 7 reads as under : "The sale of any of the goods mentioned in Schedule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC375Tribunal
1. The main grievance in this case is as regards an application for refund made by the applicants on 1st March, 1953, under Section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946. That section provides as follows : " The Collector shall, in the prescribed manner, refund to a registered dealer applying in this behalf any amount of tax paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under this Act, either by cash payment or, at the option of the dealer, by deduction of such excess from the amount of tax due in respect of any other period : Provided that no claim to refund of any tax paid under this Act shall be allowed unless it is made within twenty-four months from the date on which the order of assessment was passed or within twelve months of the final order passed on appeal, revision, or reference in respect of the order of assessment, whichever period is later. Provided further that the Collector shall first apply the excess paid in respect of any period towards the recovery of an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC373Tribunal
1. The only point argued in this case was whether the authorities below were justified in adding to the sale price the town duty paid by them on the goods at the time of their import into the city of Bombay. The price of cement in which they deal is fixed at the controlled rate of Rs. 89-8-0 per ton and in their bills the applicants charged sales tax at 1/2 anna per rupee on the said price plus town duty at one rupee per ton. It has been admitted that under the Control Order, the company was entitled to add local taxes and sales tax to the controlled price. Mr.Mehta has contended that the sale price should not be held to include the town duty, and he has relied on a decision of the Andhra High Court in The State of Andhra v. Shree Bujranga Jute Mills Ltd. [1955] 6 S.T.C. 376, in support of his contention. The said High Court no doubt decided that sales tax collected by a dealer from the customers cannot be included in his net turnover, and that it is not liable to be taxed again ; but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Reported in : 19567STC448Tribunal
1. This is an appeal against, a decision of the Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay, made under Section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, that the supply of the goods by the appellants Messrs May & Baker Ltd. to Messrs May & Baker (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the company) under six specified consignment notes constituted sales for the purposes of the said Act. The firm of the company was established in Bombay in 1928. It used to receive goods manufactured in the appellants' factory in Dagenham, England, and to sell them. In 1944 the method of supply was altered to a system on a consignment basis. On 31st March, 1944, the appellants sent a cable to the company in which it was stated, "we propose take over your stocks specialities chemicals as at April first, and make all future supplies on consignment basis.... System we propose operating is as follows. For supplies specialities will issue consignment invoices for customs purposes at arrange consignment value basis ...
Tag this Judgment!