Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sacha Ram Ram Lakhan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 430, 431 and 432 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1977]39STC235(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentSacha Ram Ram Lakhan
Advocates:The Standing Counsel
Excerpt:
- - the sales tax officer was, therefore, justified in taking into account the survey made on 17th november, 1968 and passing an order to the best of judgment......the liability to pay the tax. the minimum shall consist of turnover of goods or class of goods notified under sub-section (1). both section 3-d(1) and section 3-d(3) read with the definition of the word 'turnover' make it clear that the 'turnover' shall be the aggregate of all purchases made of goods and class of goods notified by the state government. we may illustrate this by taking an example. the purchases effected by a dealer in one year may be taken as under : (a) foodgrains rs. 20,000 ; (b) oil-seeds rs. 2,000; (c) gur rs. 8,000; (d) dry fruits rs. 15,000. the aggregate turnover of first purchases for purposes of section 3-d shall be determined by clubbing together the first three items as they are notified goods. so far as the last item is concerned, it being.....
Judgment:

R.M. Sahai, J.

1.The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi :

Whether, in view of the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, the purchase turnover of gur amounting to Rs. 1,000 would be exempt from tax in view of the provisions of Section 3-D(3) even if the total turnover of the dealer is above Rs. 12,000 ?

2. The assessee carried on business in gur, kerana, foodgrains, kerosene oil and other allied objects. The assessee did not maintain any account books. The assessment year in dispute is 1964-65. A survey was made on 17th November, 1968. The survey is of a period subsequent to the assessment year. Normally, a survey made after the assessment year is not relevant but the assessee admitted before the assessing authority that the stock and business during the year in question has been of the same scale and stature as was found at the time of the survey. The Sales Tax Officer was, therefore, justified in taking into account the survey made on 17th November, 1968 and passing an order to the best of judgment. He fixed the turnover of different items as under : (1) Kerana Rs. 5,000 ; (2) Kerosene and Til oil Rs. 7,000; (3) Foodgrains Rs. 30,000 ; (4) Gur Rs. 3,000. The assessee filed an appeal which was partly allowed only on the question of quantum. The appellate court maintained the turnover of foodgrains as determined by the Sales Tax Officer but reduced the turnover of gur by Rs. 2,000. The assessee filed a revision which has been allowed. The revising authority estimated the turnover of foodgrains below Rs. 25,000 and, therefore, struck it down. The taxability of purchases of gur was also struck down as it was below Rs. 12,000 the minimum taxable limit provided under Section 3-D(3). We are concerned in this reference whether the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) on the taxability of gur is sustainable in law.

3. Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act created a charge on the turnover of a dealer. The turnover was defined in Section 2(i) as 'proceeds of sales by a dealer'. Section 3-D was added in 1958 and it levied a tax on the turnover of purchases of every 'dealer in respect of such goods or class of goods as may be notified from time to time by the State Government. The addition of Section 3-D necessitated a change in the definition of the word 'turnover' as the charging Section levied a tax on the turnover of first purchases. In 1959 the definition of 'turnover' was amended and it read as 'the aggregate amount for which goods are supplied or distributed by way of sale or bought by a dealer....'

4. Section 3-D(1) levies tax on the turnover of first purchases of goods made by a dealer as may be notified from time to time by the State Government. Section 3-D(3) lays down the minimum for purposes of determining the liability to pay the tax. The minimum shall consist of turnover of goods or class of goods notified under Sub-section (1). Both Section 3-D(1) and Section 3-D(3) read with the definition of the word 'turnover' make it clear that the 'turnover' shall be the aggregate of all purchases made of goods and class of goods notified by the State Government. We may illustrate this by taking an example. The purchases effected by a dealer in one year may be taken as under : (a) Foodgrains Rs. 20,000 ; (b) Oil-seeds Rs. 2,000; (c) Gur Rs. 8,000; (d) Dry fruits Rs. 15,000. The aggregate turnover of first purchases for purposes of Section 3-D shall be determined by clubbing together the first three items as they are notified goods. So far as the last item is concerned, it being unnotified, it cannot be taken into consideration as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Nand Kishore Gauri Shanker 1973 U.P.T.C. 609. The payment of tax on each item shall, however, be determined in accordance with the notifications issued from time to time by the State Government. For instance the turnover of foodgrains being below Rs. 25,000 shall not be subjected to any tax : see Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sita Ram Ayodhya Prasad, Foodgrains Dealer, Moradabad 1973 U.P.T.C. 332. But there being no specific notification for oil-seed or gur they shall be liable to tax as the turnover of notified goods is above the taxable limit. This shall demonstrate that for determining the minimum taxable limit what has to be taken into account is the total of all the purchases of notified goods made by a dealer. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is not correct.

5. In view of what'we have stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative in favour of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and against the assessee. The answer to the question referred is as follows :

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the purchase turnover of gur amounting to Rs. 1,000 would not be exempt from tax.

6. As nobody has appeared for the assessee, there shall be no order as to Costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //