2016 (7) TMI 587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t stated that the only issue and dispute which would fall for adjudication would be with respect to the import of a consignment of beetle nuts purchased by the revisionist from M/S. Rumpa Impex, Kanpur. It is the case of the revisionist that during the course of assessment proceedings, a notice dated 20 November 2003 was issued to it calling upon the assessee to explain the transactions which had been entered into by it with M/S. Rumpa Impex, Kanpur. In the reply of the revisionist, it was its categorical case that the beetle nuts which had been imported by M/S. Rumpa Impex, Kanpur from Bangladesh had been duly brought under the cover of Form 31 and after paying tax payable thereon. It was stated that M/S. Rumpa Impex, Kanpur had not claime....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filled and signed by the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; and (b) If the subsequent sale is made to a registered dealer, a declaration referred to in of sub-section(4) of section 8; Provided further that it shall not be necessary to furnish the declaration or the certificate referred to in clause (b) of the proceeding proviso in respect of a subsequent sale of goods if,-- (a) the sale or purchase of such goods is, under the Sales Tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or is subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than [three] percent or such reduced rate as may be n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that the M/S. Rumpa Impex did not claim any exemption under Section 6(2). The purchase which was effected by the revisionist was tax paid. These facts were duly disclosed by it in its initial reply dated 29 November 2003 itself. If, M/S. Rumpa Impex had not claimed any exemption from tax by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act and the revisionist had in fact purchased the goods after paying the tax, no additional liability could have been foisted upon the revisionist. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the assessing authority have clearly erred in proceeding on the basis that the sale was one which would stand covered within the ambit of Section 6(2) of the 1956 Act. Lear....