Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was required to determine, on a true and correct interpretation, whether scrap batteries sold to the assessee were covered by entry 42B of Schedule C or entry 22 of Schedule E, and whether it erred in refusing to decide that question by applying estoppel against the revenue.
Analysis: The reference made to the Court required the Tribunal to decide the actual rate of tax chargeable on the sales of scrap batteries, independent of what had been done in the assessments of the vendors. The Tribunal, however, did not determine whether the goods fell under the relevant taxing entry and instead treated the assessments of the vendors as precluding the revenue from asserting a different legal position. The governing principle is that estoppel, including the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, cannot operate against the statute in tax matters. A transaction is either exigible to tax at the rate fixed by law or it is not, and administrative action in another assessment cannot alter the statutory incidence.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was bound to decide the correct statutory entry and erred in law in invoking estoppel to avoid that determination. The answer was against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.