1955 (3) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Sales Tax Officer determined the gross turnover to be Rs. 48,11,281-11-6 and the taxable turnover to be Rs. 32,44,813. The amount of tax payable by the assessee was determined as Rs. 50,700 and odd. The assessee claimed that he was entitled to deduct from his gross turnover (1) sale of jute despatched by the assessee outside the limits of Bihar, and (2) sale of jute products despatched similarly out- side the limits of Bihar. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 16,00,000 and odd under the first item and a deduction of Rs. 24,78,890 and odd under the second item. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed the first item for certain reasons which it is not necessary to consider in the present case. We are concerned in this reference only with t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee that the Sales Tax Officer was confused and made an erroneous observation that evidence was not produced on behalf of the assessee to support his claim. The Board of Revenue passed an order on 8th May, 1951, remanding the case for investigation to the Sales Tax Officer on the question whether the assessee had actually produced documentary evidence to support his claim. The matter was then examined, and on 23rd May, 1951, the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes submitted a report that the assessee had produced the abstract statement book for the year 1946-47 and R.R. book for jute products for the same period before Mr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Superintendent on 4th February, 1949. On receipt of this report the Board of Revenue drew up a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Superintendent of Com- mercial Taxes dated 23rd May, 1951, and had reached the finding that "the R. R. books and the abstract sale registers for the period were duly produced by the assessee before the Inspector and the Taxing Officer". It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee was entitled to the full deduction of Rs. 24,78,890 and odd under section 5(2)(a)(v) instead of the sum of Rs. 12,00,000 and odd which has been allowed by the Sales Tax Officer on the basis of an estimate. On behalf of the State of Bihar, the learned Government Advocate conceded that on merits the assessee had a good case and that he was entitled to the deduction of the full amount of Rs. 24,78,890 and odd. The learned Government Advocate made this concession....