1987 (12) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Salar Jung Sugar Mills, Munirabad was formerly a unit and branch of the respondent-India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., and as per the agreement dated 13th April, 1982, the Salar Jung unit had been transferred by the India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. as a separate unit and that hence the Salar Jung Sugar Mills alone is liable to pay the arrears of tax. He referred me to the date of agreement referred to in the order of the court below. The agreement is dated 13th April, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 16 of 1982 is filed on 6th March, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 12 of 1982 is filed on 10th February, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 5 of 1982 is filed on 10th February, 1982 and the application f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both. The said argument is well-founded. Admittedly, the Government is not a party to the agreement between the respondent and the Salar Jung Mills. So whatever be the agreement between them, the said agreement would not come in the way of the tax authorities collecting the arrears. This is also the view taken by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town Division, Madras v. Sha Sukraj Peerajee [1968] 21 STC 5. Therefore, the trial court, in my opinion, has misdirected itself by misinterpreting section 15(1) of the Sales Tax Act. Therefore the amounts sought to be recovered in these petitions are for the period prior to the date of agreement between the respondent and the Salar Jung Mills. Therefore, the petitioner in all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the last purchase of sugarcane in the State when purchased by a manufacturer of jaggery and sugarcane syrup (processed) whose total turnover during the year does not exceed rupees five lakhs." Therefore, the purchase tax contemplated by section 25-B of the Act read with section 12-B would amount to an amount due for the purpose of section 13. In M.C. No. 16 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 5,10,099.30 and in M.C. No. 12 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 10,10,809.21 and in M.C. No. 5 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 6,29,058 and in M.C. No. 13 of 1982 the amount claimed is Rs. 11,01,800.28. Admittedly, these are the amounts of purchase tax mentioned by the respondent itself in the various returns submitted by it under section 12. S....