Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1992 (7) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....observation made in the audit report? (iii) The rate of tax to which the sale in question is taxable, if at all. 2.. In so far as the first question is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for both the sides have cited certain decisions which are really not relatable to the question at hand. These decisions are: (1) H.T. Chemical Laboratories v. State of U.P. [1972] 29 STC 148 (All.), (2) Rashtra Deep Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1983] 53 STC 419 (All.), (3) State of A.P. v. Raja Medical Stores [1983] 53 STC 428 (AP) and (4) Bavishi & Sons v. State of Gujarat [1992] 84 STC 161 (Guj). In all these cases, the courts were called upon to decide on the basis of the exemption entries in the relevant Sales Tax Acts as to whether ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted in motor vehicles, we have no doubt that even then it would not fall within the word "water" as used in entry 39, as distilled water in the later case also would be meant for consumption by motor vehicle, and not a human being. We, therefore, reject the first submission of Shri Ray. 5.. As to the second question, the learned counsel states that the observation made in the audit report cannot provide the basis for reassessment proceeding under section 12(8) of the Act. He submits that as the audit report opined that exemption was not available to the dealer because he was selling distilled water whereas exemption was meant for "water", the information given by the audit party was on question of law and, as such, the same would not amoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e decision in Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar [1959] 37 ITR 388 (SC); AIR 1959 SC 1303 in which the court was seized of the interpretation of section 26 of the, Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, reading: "If for any reason any agricultural income chargeable to agricultural income-tax has escaped assessment.............." (Emphasis supplied) which is also the language used in section 12(8) of the Act which opens by saying: "If for any reason the turnover of a dealer for any period to which this Act applies has escaped assessment......." (Emphasis ours) 7.. While dealing with the aforesaid provision of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, the court observed in paragraph 16: "The use of the words 'any reason' which ....