TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6'). 2. The assessee was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1936. A registration certificate was issued to the assessee under Section 7 (2) of the aforesaid Act enabling the assessee to import 'mill stores' for use in the manufacturing process of rice. The assessee imported Automatic Parboil Paddy Drier, Paddy Dehusker and Welding Machine worth ₹ 1,60,000/-, ₹ 8,635/- and ₹ 1,400/- respectively aggregating to ₹ 1,70,035/- by having issued 'C Form. The assessing officer took the view that the aforesaid import was made by the assessee under Form 'C in contravention of the registration certificate. He took the view that the import of the aforesaid machinery could not be covered by the term ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence. If the registered dealer honestly believes that any particular goods are embraced by certificate of registration and in that belief makes a representation he cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 10 (b) of the Act, 1956 and no penalty can be imposed pnder Section 10-A of the Act. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Gemini Studios, (1975) 36 S.T-C. 357? the Madras High Court took precisely the same view as was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bombay Garage (supra), The Madras High Court held that when purchasing goods by issuing 'C' Forms, a mere representation based on a bona fide belief by an assessee registered under the Central Sales Tax. Act, 1956, that the goods are covered by his certificate of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide belief that either machinery imported thereby was covered by the term 'mill stores', which it was authorised to import under the certificate of registration. 9. Relying on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain, (1970) 25 S.T.C. 471), in which it was held that the expression 'mill stores''consisted of items such as small tools and spare parts of machinery, which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Fine Trading Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., (1970) 25 S.T.C. 474, the contention of learned Standing Counsel is that the machines imported by the assessee aggregating to the value of ₹ 1,70,000/- and odd, can in no case be said to be spare parts and, therefore, they are ....