TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether purchase of declared goods by a commission agent on the strength of a declaration in form S.T. 17 attracted tax liability under the second proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section (s) of section 2 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 despite the commission agency character of the transaction. (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in remanding the matter for inquiry as to whether the principals had already been assessed to tax on the same turnover.
Issue (i): Whether purchase of declared goods by a commission agent on the strength of a declaration in form S.T. 17 attracted tax liability under the second proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section (s) of section 2 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 despite the commission agency character of the transaction.
Analysis: The goods in question were oil-seeds, being declared goods, and the statutory scheme under section 5(1)(ii) of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 and the notification dated 11th April, 1958 provided a prescribed stage of levy for such goods. The respondent had purchased the goods on the strength of a declaration in form S.T. 17 and had not used them for the declared purpose. The second proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section (s) of section 2 specifically brings the purchase price into taxable turnover where goods are purchased without tax on the strength of a declaration and are used for a purpose other than the one mentioned in the declaration. The absence of a provision similar to section 9B dealing with commission-agent sales did not exclude liability where the statutory conditions of the proviso were otherwise satisfied.
Conclusion: The purchase transaction was capable of attracting tax under the second proviso to section 2(s)(iv), and the commission agency character of the transaction did not by itself exempt the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in remanding the matter for inquiry as to whether the principals had already been assessed to tax on the same turnover.
Analysis: The respondent could avoid liability only by showing that the same turnover had already suffered tax in the hands of the principals. The Deputy Commissioner found that there was no conclusive evidence that the tax due on the transactions had been paid by the Bharatpur principals and therefore directed further inquiry from the assessing authority. The revisional authority and the Division Bench set aside that remand without recording a finding that the evidence was conclusive. On the material before it, the remand was intended to verify whether the turnover had already been taxed at the proper stage, which was necessary to determine the respondent's liability.
Conclusion: The order of remand was justified and the Board of Revenue was not justified in setting it aside.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the order restoring the matter for further inquiry prevailed, leaving the respondent's tax liability dependent on the result of the remand inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a purchaser gives a declaration to obtain goods without payment of tax and later uses the goods inconsistently with that declaration, the purchase price may be included in taxable turnover unless it is shown that the same turnover has already been subjected to tax at the appropriate stage.
TaxTMI 
