TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Selling dealer not liable for tax difference under Rule 20-A(1)(v)</h1> The court held that the selling dealer was not liable for the tax difference as per the amended rule 20-A(1)(v) since the purchasing dealer's declaration ... - Issues:1. Challenge to the reopening of assessment under section 19 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act.2. Interpretation of rule 20-A(1)(v) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.3. Application of the amended rule 20-A(1)(v) after a Full Bench decision.4. Liability of the selling dealer for tax difference after reassessment.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 19 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, alleging that no opportunity was given and rule 20-A(1)(v) was not followed. The petitioner contended that the revising authority's rejection was illegal. The respondent argued that the initial assessment was made without proper verification, leading to proceedings under section 19(l) for reassessment.2. The dispute centered on the interpretation of rule 20-A(1)(v) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The petitioner's counsel argued that the amended rule clearly absolved the selling dealer from liability if the purchasing dealer provided a declaration in form XII-A after 1st January 1974. The government advocate, however, contended that the duty was on the selling dealer to verify goods specified in the purchasing dealer's registration certificate.3. Post a Full Bench decision, the rules were amended, specifically rule 20-A(1)(v). The amended rule, effective from 22nd February 1979, outlined the consequences if a declaration in form XII-A was made after 1st January 1974. The rule exempted the selling dealer from tax liability difference, placing the burden on the purchasing dealer for a composition fee.4. The court found that the amended rule 20-A(1)(v) was applicable in the present case as the purchasing dealer's declaration was post-1st January 1974. Consequently, the selling dealer could not be held liable for the tax difference. The court quashed the orders passed by the authorities and directed refund if recovery was made. The parties were instructed to bear their own costs, and the security amount deposited was to be refunded to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
