DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES-TAX Vs. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES-TAX
ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD., KUNDARA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) These two petitions have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Quilon under S.41(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to revise the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. Nos. 408 and 409 of 1966. The Aluminium Industries Ltd. is the respondent in both the cases. In the first case, the respondent was finally assessed for the year 1960-61 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 18-10-1962. In the second case, it was finally assessed for the year 1961-62 under the same Act by the same officer by his order dated 29-10-1962. In both these assessments, the respondent made a claim for deduction of the trade discount paid to its customers from its gross turnover in determining the taxable turnover. This claim was allowed by the Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner took the view that this claim was not admissible under law. Accordingly, he took action under S.15(1) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (hereinafter referred to as the 1125 Act), and revised the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, by disallowing the above claim. The orders of the petitioner were passed on 23-6-1966.
(2.) The period fixed under S.15(3) of the 1125 Act for exercising the power of revision is four years from the date on which the order sought to be revised was communicated to the assessee. The revised order in these case have been passed within the above period. R.33(1) of General Sales Tax R.1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) confers the power on an assessing authority to assess escaped turnover. The same power is also conferred by R.33(5) on the appellate authority and the revisional authority. But the period prescribed for exercising the said powers is three years from the end of the year to which the assessment relates. So the order passed by the petitioner is beyond the said period in both cases.
(3.) The respondent filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal from the orders of the petitioner; and it raised two contentions. One was that the petitioner was not entitled to take action under S.15(1) of the 1125 Act, as these were cases of assessment of escaped turnover, which were barred under Sub Rules (1) and (5) of R.33 of the Rules. The second contention was that it was entitled to deduction of trade discount from the gross turnover.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.