2001 (7) TMI 1265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uts. On the end-product, the assessee collected sales tax at 3 per cent from the purchasers. While filing the return, the assessee deducted the amount of sales tax paid on the raw material, viz., the billets and ingots. On the basis of the taxable turnover, the assessee deposited the sales tax. Admittedly, the tax paid on the purchase of raw material had been deducted. Initially, the returns filed by the assessee were accepted. Subsequently, the matter was re-opened on the ground that the assessee could not have deducted the amount of tax paid on the purchase of ingots and billets. Thus, an addition was made to the taxable turnover by invoking the provisions of section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The assessee was held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue. 6.. Despite the above, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the parties that in view of the provisions of clause (3) of section 42, this Court has to direct the Tribunal "to state the case and refer it" for decision. 7.. It is undoubtedly correct that if the provision is literally construed, it would be right to require the Tribunal to state the case and then take a decision. This would be the normal course. However, in the present case, there is no dispute on facts. The issue of law has been authoritatively decided by the apex Court. Should this Court still issue a direction to the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court? Would it serve any purpose? We think not. It would only mean an avoidable loss of time and money. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Commissioner of Income-tax v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC). Honourable the Supreme Court had given the decision without directing the High Court to call for the statement of the case. 9.. Undoubtedly, their Lordships have much wider powers than this Court. However, it appears that a similar course has also been adopted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharishi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidya Peetham [1998] 232 ITR 170. It was held that it was not imperative to follow the "unnecessary and cumbersome part of the procedure" which in the opinion of their Lordships was "directory". Thus, the court had proceeded to "straightaway......answer the question". Similar view has also been ta....