KUMAR IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
LAWS(GAU)-1994-5-3
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 11,1994

KUMAR IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF TAXES Respondents




JUDGEMENT

D.N.BARUAH,J. - (1.)THE above civil rules involve common questions of law and fact. I, therefore, propose to dispose of all these civil rules by a common judgment.
(2.)THE petitioner-company has filed the above civil rules against annexure V, common order dated April 23, 1988, passed by the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioner under section 20 (2) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") against the annexure III, common order dated November 15, 1984, passed by the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Guwahati and has also challenged the annexure VI notices dated May 31, 1988 passed by the 3rd respondent - Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-C, Guwahati, demanding tax with interest up to 31st May, 1988, from the petitioner-company.
The petitioner's case may briefly be stated as follows : The petitioner is a private limited company. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of M. S. rounds or steel, etc. , in Assam. The company is a dealer under the Act. The petitioner-company also undertakes job works for conversion of billets into M. S. rounds on behalf of various customers in Assam. The petitioner as a dealer has been paying tax as required under the Act on its overall turnover of iron and steel materials manufactured by it for sale in the State. For the period ending September 30, 1977 (in Civil Rule No. 1099 of 1988), March 31, 1988 (in Civil Rule No. 1100 of 1988), September 30, 1979 (in the Civil Rule No. 1101 of 1988), March 31, 1981 (in Civil Rule No. 1102 of 1988), September 31, 1981 (in Civil Rule No. 1103 of 1988), March 31, 1982 (in Civil Rule No. 1104 of 1988) and September 30, 1982 (in Civil Rule No. 1105 of 1988), the petitioner submitted its returns of turnover showing details of sales and paid the admitted tax as per law. No tax was, however, paid on the sale proceeds of the surplus M. S. rounds received by the petitioner from its customers if the burning loss was less than 10 per cent. The 3rd respondent issued notices under section 9 (2) of the Act and in pursuance thereof the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and produced its books of accounts in support of returns. The 3rd respondent examined the account and assessed the turnover of the petitioner. Letter the 3rd respondent issued notices under section 11 of the Act to include the value of the surplus M. S. rounds which was not earlier held to be taxable by him. The petitioner appeared and submitted objections. With regard to the sale proceeds of surplus M. S. rounds left with the petitioner by various owners who entrusted the petitioner to undertake the job of conversion of billets into M. S. rounds, the petitioner submitted that the said goods not being manufactured by the petitioner in Assam for sale, the sale price thereof was not liable to be included in its turnover under the provisions of section 2 (9) read with section 2 (6) of the Act and, as such, not liable to tax. The 3rd respondent, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner by various orders of assessment passed on different dates. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders of assessment preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent under section 19 (1) of the Act. The petitioner also submitted petitions under the provision of proviso to section 19 (1) of the Act for admission of the appeals without payment of the disputed demand and prayed for stay of realisation of the same till disposal of the appeals. For the period ending September 30, 1977, March 31, 1978, September 30, 1979, March 31, 1981, September 30, 1981 and March 31, 1982 the 2nd respondent rejected the prayer for the stay and directed the petitioner to pay the total demand on account of tax and interest amounting to Rs. 10,438. 15 for the period ending September 30, 1977, Rs. 12,899. 66 for the period ending March 31, 1978 and Rs. 29,363. 68 for the period ending September 30, 1979. For the period ending March 31, 1981, September 30, 1981 and March 31, 1982 the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,500. Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 24,000 respectively over and above the amount the petitioner had already deposited. The petitioner paid the said amounts and thereafter the appeals were admitted. For the period ending September 30, 1982, the 2nd respondent stayed the demand and admitted the appeal. Against the order of the 2nd respondent for the period ending September 30, 1977, March 31, 1978 and September 30, 1979 the petitioner filed revision petitions before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by order dated February 21, 1984 allowed the revision petitions directing the 2nd respondent to admit the appeals and to stay the demand subject to payment of Rs. 1,500, Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 2,000 for the above period. After hearing the petitioner, the 2nd respondent disposed of all the appeals by annexure III, common order dated November 15, 1984, rejecting the appeals and upholding the decision of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent also rejected the objection regarding the payment of interest raised by the petitioner's counsel. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petitions before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also by annexure V, common order dated April 23, 1988, dismissed the revision petitions. Thereafter, as a follow up action the 3rd respondent issued annexure VI notices dated May 31, 1988. Hence, the present petitions.

(3.)I have heard both sides.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.