Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2009 (8) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....years 1984-85 and on a finding that the petitioner had adopted colourable devices to avoid tax liability on transportation charges collected by it enhancing the turnover thereon Rs. 1 lakh and recomputing the tax payable as well as levy of penalty thereon amounting to Rs. 52,080. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of assessment under section 12(8) of the OST Act and the appellate authority came to allow the appeal by applying the ratio of the judgment of this court in the case of Shree Rani Sati Mining Traders v. Sales Tax Officer [1983] 53 STC 322 and came to hold that since the cost of freight was not borne by the seller/supplier and the purchaser paid for the same and it was charged separately, the amount r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d receipt of transportation charges, its gross turnover was enhanced and the tax and penalty was levied thereon. The learned counsel for the Revenue further asserts that since the petitioner had suppressed the turnover and the transportation charges received by it, it cannot be permitted to claim deduction under section 5(2)(A)(a) of the Act. In response to the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Mysore in the case of Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [1967] 20 STC 64 and in particular the finding of the court in paragraph 6 thereof, which is quoted hereinbelow: "When the facts are not disputed and the law is so clear, we fail to understand how the assessin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the first appellate order that the appellate authority came to the following findings: "In the instant case there is a contract, the purchase order which stipulates as follows: Cost of metal Rs. 60.00 per cum Sales tax Rs. 4.80 per cum T.O.T. . . . Rs. 0.32 per cum Transport Rs. 97.88 per cum Total Rs. 163.00 Even though the contract stipulates delivery at purchaser's site, the cost of freight is not to be borne by the seller/supplier. The rate agreed upon, i.e., Rs. 163 was not at all inclusive price to become in which the consideration money it was mutually agreed upon that the price would be Rs. 60 per cum. And the purchaser would also be liable to pay transport charges at Rs. 97.88 per cum. When the....