TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Taxes in CCT's. Ref. L.III(2)/679/2002. 2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/dealer and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. We have perused the material record. 3. The facts, which are necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:- "The appellant/dealer is the assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, M. G. Road Circle ('the CTO', for brevity) and was finally assessed by the said officer for the year 1998-99. Aggrieved of the orders dated November 28, 2000 of the CTO, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta (for brevity 'the ADC') disputing the tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of the ADC as he was of the view that the view taken by the ADC is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue of the State. Finally, the Commissioner by his impugned orders had set aside the orders of the ADC and had restored the orders of the CTO. Therefore, the aggrieved appellant/dealer is before this court." 4. Now the only point for determination is: "Whether the appellant/dealer is entitled to seek deduction in respect of sales returns in the relevant assessment year 1997-98 in which the sales of the returned goods had taken place despite the fact that the assessment for that year 1997-98 is completed ?" 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend as follows: "By a bona fide mistake and for the reasons that the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and the submissions. 8. The facts are not in dispute. The sales related to the assessment year 1997-98 to an extent of Rs. 1,66,01,301 were not accepted by the purchasers of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, ought to have claimed the relief against the returned sales turnovers in that assessment year 1997- 98. Under a bona fide impression and as the rejection or sales returns had taken place in the year 1998-99, the appellant had claimed the relief in the said year, which is the subsequent year. The law is well-settled that the deduction towards sales returns can only be made from the total turnover of the assessment year in which the goods that are returned were actually sold. Such deduction cannot be claimed from the total t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditions which have to be satisfied for claiming the deduction under rule 9(b)(i) are that the goods in question must have been returned within three months from the date of delivery and that necessary entries are made in the accounts of the assessee. If these conditions are satisfied, the amount allowed to the purchaser for the returned goods would be deductible from the total turnover. . . Any deduction that can be made under rule 9(b)(i) of the Rules can only be made from the total turnover of the assessment year in which the goods that are returned within three months of the date of delivery were actually sold. Such deduction cannot be claimed from the total turnover of the succeeding financial year. . . . This, however, need not pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uded from the turnover. The assessing authority had rightly declined to do so as the disputed turnover related to the previous assessment year. 10. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of rule 6 of the Rules made under the Act, which reads as under: "6. The tax or taxes and surcharge under sections 5, 5B, 5C, 5E, 6, 6 A and 6C or notified under section 9(1) shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer. In determining the net turnover, the amounts specified in clauses (a) to (l) shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the turnover of a dealer- (a) . . . (b) (i) all amounts allowed to purchasers in respect of goods returned by them to the dealer when the goods are taxable on sales provided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....back or the goods purchased have been returned as the case may be." The claim for deduction should satisfy all the requirements of the provisions of law. As already noted, the claim for deduction on account of return of goods, referred to in clause (b) of rule 6, can be permitted to be made only out of the turnover relating to the assessment year in which the value of the returned goods was included provided such claim is preferred in due compliance with the other requirements of the said provisions of law. Deduction cannot be given in any other assessment year. Coming to the facts of this case, it would mean that this deduction should be made only from the turnover for the assessment year 1997-98 provided the other requirements of the pro....