Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-1956
Reported in : (1956)IMLJ457; 7STC265(Mad)
ordersomasundaram, j.1. the petitioners in the above two petitions have been convicted for not paying the registration fee under section 8-a, clause (3), read with section 15 (b) of the general sales tax act.2. the petitioner in criminal revision case no. 696 of 1955 is a vegetable merchant and the petitioners in criminal revision case no. 697 of 1955 are fruit merchants. they are commission agents. under section 14-a they are deemed to be dealers within the meaning of the act. in respect of their business they are liable to be assessed irrespective of the amount of the turnover of the business being less than the minimum specified in section 3, clause (3). under section 8-b of the act taxes can be collected only from those who are registered dealers and, therefore, under section 8-a the petitioners have to get themselves registered whatever the amount of the turnover is, as under section 14-a they are liable to assessment irrespective of the amount of the turnover.3. by g. o. notification no. 710, dated 25th march, 1954, published in the gazette dated 7th april, 1954, vegetables and fruits are exempted from sales tax. the petitioners are therefore not liable to pay any sales tax, whatever the amount of the turnover. this is so even in the case of business of a non-resident. it is contended that though the petitioners must be deemed to be dealers under section 14-a, still as they are not liable to pay tax on account of the exemption, there is no need to get themselves .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-11-1956
Reported in : (1956)2MLJ343
order1. this petition preferred by the government, under section 12-b of the madras general sales tax act, arose out of proceedings taken under the act, to assess the turnover of the respondent for the year, 1950-51. the assessee did not file any return of his turnover for 1950-51 within the time prescribed. after other proceeding's had been taken by the assessing authorities, he voluntarily, submitted a return of his turnover on 20th february, 1954. that return, supported by the entries in his account books, was accepted by the assessing authorities, and on 11th march, 1954 the respondent was assessed to tax on a turnover of rs. 18,651-13-9. that assessment was confirmed by the commercial tax officer on appeal. but on further appeal by the assessee the tribunal held that the assessment fell within the scope of rule 17(i) of the madras general sales tax rules, and that the assessment made on nth march, 1954, was barred by the period of limitation prescribed by the rule. the view of the tribunal was that the turnover of the assessee had escaped assessment and that the period of two years prescribed by the rule before it was amended applied to the respondent. it was the correctness of that decision that the government challenged.2. apparently the tribunal overlooked the main feature of the case, that the assessee filed a return of his turnover, though he filed it only on 20th february, 1954, that return was accepted as correct, and he was assessed to tax on the basis of that .....Tag this Judgment!