TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court dismisses Revision Applications on sales tax refund for country made liquor; price fixed didn't include tax.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Dehradun Versus Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Dehradun Versus Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. - [2014] 72 VST 343 (Utk) Issues:1. Refund of sales tax on country made liquor for Assessment Years 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. Interpretation of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.Analysis:1. The judgment involves two Revision Applications dealing with the refund of sales tax on country made liquor by a Government Company for the Assessment Years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The assessee had deposited sums with the Sales Tax Authority and sought a refund, claiming that no sales tax was payable on the sale of country made liquor during those years. The Appellate Authority rejected the refund request, stating that the sale price included the tax amount. However, the Tribunal found that the price fixed by the Excise Department for country made liquor did not include sales tax as it was not taxable during the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the refund, emphasizing that the sale price did not encompass any sales tax amount.2. The Sales Tax Department, in the Revision Application, argued that the Tribunal overlooked Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which prohibits refunds of tax or fee admitted by the dealer in returns or during proceedings. The High Court noted the absence of findings by the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority regarding the application of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29. There was no evidence of the assessee admitting to tax liability in returns or proceedings. The lower authorities assumed that the price of country made liquor included tax, leading to the collection and deposit of tax from purchasers, thereby rejecting the refund claim.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both Revision Applications due to the lack of evidence supporting the application of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 and the erroneous assumption by the lower authorities regarding the inclusion of tax in the price of country made liquor.
TaxTMI 