Skip to content


Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Santosh Industries - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 456 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1980]45STC314(Mad)
AppellantCommissioner, Sales Tax
RespondentSantosh Industries
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateK.M. Dayal, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....at the relevant point of time. the assessee sold goods in the course of inter-state trade in the assessment year 1962-63 of the value of rs. 15, 186. this turnover was brought to tax. during the assessment year 1963-64, the goods were returned to the assessee and were resold. the sales tax officer brought this turnover to tax on the ground that the price received for these goods represented the turnover of the assessment year 1963-64. an appeal filed by the assessee on this point failed, but the revision succeeded. the revising authority has allowed the revision on the ground that as the assessee had paid tax on these goods in the assessment year 1962-63, the principle of natural justice demanded that this turnover should be exempted from tax in the assessment year 1963-64......
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which has been treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.

2. This is a hard case for the assessee, who has been made liable to tax on account of not adopting the proper remedy that may have been available to him at the relevant point of time. The assessee sold goods in the course of inter-State trade in the assessment year 1962-63 of the value of Rs. 15, 186. This turnover was brought to tax. During the assessment year 1963-64, the goods were returned to the assessee and were resold. The Sales Tax Officer brought this turnover to tax on the ground that the price received for these goods represented the turnover of the assessment year 1963-64. An appeal filed by the assessee on this point failed, but the revision succeeded. The revising authority has allowed the revision on the ground that as the assessee had paid tax on these goods in the assessment year 1962-63, the principle of natural justice demanded that this turnover should be exempted from tax in the assessment year 1963-64. Unfortunately, equitable considerations and hardship cannot alter the liability under a statutory provision. It is not disputed that the assessee sold these goods in the assessment year 1963-64. This being so, the sale price of these goods had to be included in the turnover of the assessee. The fact that the tax had been paid on these goods in the year 196263, could not take out the sale price from being included in the turnover, for the statute does not contemplate this to be done. The proper remedy open for the assessee was to have moved the authorities under the appropriate provisions of law for granting relief in the assessment year 1962-63. The counsel for the assessee urged that a direction to this effect be issued in the revision. This, however, is not possible, as the court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 can issue directions only in respect of the assessment year involved in the revision. However, in case it is permissible under the law the assessee may move the appropriate authorities for granting him such relief as warranted under the law.

3. The revision is allowed and the order of the revising authority is set aside. He is directed to redetermine the tax on the turnover. In these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.


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