TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the exemption from tax available under section 16(4) of Maharashtra Act XXII of 1997 dated 24.4.1997? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the interest charged under section 36(3)(b) by holding it as consequential?" 2. The facts necessary for answering these questions are that, the applicant before us is engaged in the business of selling yarn, cloth, machinery and leasing. On 10.3.1992, he purchased two trucks from M/s. Vimal Star Leasing Corporation for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/. There was no other transaction of sale or purchase during the year except these purchases. 3. The Sales Tax Officer, Mumbai, assessed the applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Surte would submit that the Amendment Act has been completely misread and misinterpreted by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. The authorities completely omitted to make a reference to the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 whereunder in subsections (4) and (5) of Section 16 of this Amendment and Validation Act, the Legislature substituted the two subsections and they shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 29.6.1996. Mr. Surte would submit that the ingredients of these substituted provisions are completely satisfied in this case. The Tribunal should have considered this matter in the light of these substituted provisions. Once a dealer has objected to the assessment and by ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arashtra Act No.XXII of 1997 was published in the Government Gazette on 24.4.1997. It was an Act to further amend the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996. The controversy has been rightly understood by the First Appellate Authority and equally by the Tribunal while narrating the facts. The transaction of purchase of the two trucks from M/s. Vimal Star Leasing Corporation resulted in the levy of purchase tax. While levying that tax, the authority relied upon the provisions which were amended. The authorities have rightly understood why this transaction has been brought to tax. That is because by insertion of Explanation-II with effect from 15.1.1975 of the Maharashtra Act No.XIX....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation for reference against such levy on the grounds as aforesaid; or (2) where such dealer has not been assessed, he has not paid such tax on the grounds as aforesaid or has paid the tax under protest, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act as amended by this Amendment Act, he shall not be liable to pay the purchase tax or, as the case may be, the sales tax, in respect of such purchases or sales." 13. A bare perusal of this provision would indicate as to how, when any registered dealer who, before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, has effected any purchases from a person who is not a dealer, or the sale of capital assets pertaining to his business, but has objected to the levy of the tax on such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand has been assessed, he has filed an appeal but has not raised the ground or the objection to the levy of tax on such purchase. He has squarely said that this tax is not payable. It may be that the amended provision is attracted and that is a question answered in favour of the Revenue, but to say that the dealer never objected to the purchase tax is not a proper reading of the challenge raised by the dealer. 15. At pages 12 and 13 of the paperbook, in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned order, the Tribunal correctly understood this controversy. It first perused the legal provision. Then it referred to the ingredients or requirements thereof. It also referred rightly to the burden placed on the dealer and squarely while claiming the benefit to....