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: Whether remission of tax under section 25 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 could be denied merely because the tax was deposited by the selling dealer though ultimately recovered from the petitioner, and whether the petitioner was entitled to an enquiry and refund with interest.
Analysis: Section 25 and Rule 48 contemplate remission to a registered dealer who suffered financial loss on account of riots, and the provision was held to require a liberal construction so as not to defeat its object. The material on record indicated that, although the tax may have been deposited through the registered selling dealer, the incidence of tax was ultimately recovered from the petitioner on the purchases made by it. On that basis, the identity of the immediate depositor was treated as immaterial where the tax burden had in substance been borne by the petitioner. The State's refusal to consider the actual recovery and deposit mechanism was found to frustrate the legislative purpose behind the remission provision.
Conclusion: The petitioner could not be denied the benefit of remission merely because payment reached the Revenue through another registered dealer; the matter required enquiry into the actual recovery and payment of tax, and if the petitioner had borne the tax burden, refund with interest was to follow.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned refusal was set aside in favour of a substantive determination of entitlement to remission and refund on the true incidence of tax.
Ratio Decidendi: A remission provision enacted to relieve a registered dealer from tax burden caused by riots must be construed liberally, and entitlement depends on who ultimately bore the tax incidence, not merely on who deposited the tax with the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
