1985 (11) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le turnover? (2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, when admittedly returns were filed late? Brief facts of the case are that sales of certain goods were effected by M/s. Premnath Motors (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") during the year 1965-66, but the same were returned by the purchaser during the year 1966-67. The first question mentioned above has to be determined as to whether the prices of goods sold during the year 1965-66, and returned by the purchaser to the dealer during the year 1966-67, could not be included in the taxable turnover. The above question is already conclude....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... date of their delivery from the total turnover of that financial year. But such a deduction cannot be claimed in the assessment proceedings for the financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the sales took place." It has thus been clearly held by the Supreme Court that a deduction cannot be claimed in the assessment proceeding for the financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the sales took place. The question No. (1) is, therefore, answered in the negative and it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Board was not justified in holding that the prices of goods sold during the year 1965-66 and returned by the purchaser to the dealer during the year 1966-67 could not be included in the ta....