Sec. 8(1)(b), 8(3)(b) & 8(4)(a) - Insistence for security apprehending misuse of C-Forms - Till 1993-94 assessee was enjoying sales tax exemption and the C-Forms already in possession by them had been misused for interstate purposes and penalty proceedings initiated. Proceedings are valid. Though Sec. 8(1)(b) refers to sale, neverthless it is clear that it covers purchases as well .Petitioner could have claimed the benefit of user of C-Forms only if it was simultaneously possible for them to establish that the goods purchased were for processing of goods for sale. The expression is for sale , and not for sale by the manufacturer. [M/s. J.J.Confectionary Pvt Ltd vs. Sales Tax Officer. 2001 (1) KLT 999 . M.Ramachandran (J)]
Sec. 10(a) - No Explanation for the delay in the penalty proceedings by the Department. Having failed to do so, they must be held responsible for the delay that was found in issuing the penalty order. Court found that the explanation offered for the delay is unsatisfactory - No provision in the Central Sales Tax Act for holding a person vicariously responsible for the penal liability incurred under Sections 10(a) and (b) of the Act. The Assessee was not the dealer on the dates when the offences were committed is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the three U.K. Companies were the one's who issued the the C-Forms -Assessee could not have been made liable for somebody else's sins. [The Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Officer Vs. Tata Tea Limited, 2002 (2) KLT 433. . (B.N.Srikrishna (CJ) & M. Ramachandran (J)]
PAGE MAINTAINED BY P.B.SAHASRANAMAN