KHUSHAL CHAND LAXMICHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions have been referred to us for our decision under Section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 :

(2.) THE applicant carries on business in grains and is a dealer registered under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. During the assessment year 1968-69, the dealer purchased wheat and juwar from unregistered dealers and supplied to the Food Corporation of India under the Levy Orders in pursuance of a scheme "procurement of wheat and/or juwar". In accordance with the view prevailing at the time of assessment, such sales under the Levy Orders were not treated as sales and the amount of turnover in respect thereof was deducted from the taxable turnover of the dealers. The assessing authority allowed the deduction on the turnover of sales made to the Food Corporation of India. The assessing authority said nothing as to whether or not the dealer was liable to purchase tax under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act on the purchase price of grain supplied to the Food Corporation of India. Exercising powers under Section 19 (1) of the Act, the assessing officer sought to reassess the turnover which had escaped assessment. The dealer was noticed why he should not be assessed to purchase tax on the purchase price of grain bought from the unregistered dealers and supplied to the Food Corporation of India under the Levy Orders. The dealer contended that the purchases were not liable to be taxed as (1) the foodgrain was acquired compulsorily ; (2) sales tax was paid by the Food Corporation of India; and (3) the Commissioner of Sales Tax had clarified, vide his letter dated 17th September, 1968, that no tax was leviable on such transactions. The assessing authority was of the view now that though the supply to the Food Corporation did not constitute "sale", the dealer would be liable to purchase tax under Section 7 (1) of the Act. It was held that the communication from the Commissioner of Sales Tax was not binding on the assessing authority. For the year 1968-69, the petitioner was, therefore, levied purchase tax amounting to Rs. 10,460 on the purchase price amounting to Rs. 5,23,000.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against the order wherein he contended that the reassessment under Section 19 (1) was illegal and unwarranted and that the purchase price of the grain purchased from the unregistered dealers which was supplied to the Food Corporation of India under the Levy Orders was not exigible to purchase tax and that the turnover could not be said to have escaped assessment. The contentions did not prevail before the first appellate authority and a second appeal before the Board of Revenue was preferred. It was contended that Section 19 (1) of the Act was provided to meet the cases where the turnover had escaped assessment. When the assessee had been assessed for the first time, the Sales Tax Officer was clearly of the opinion that the sale to the Food Corporation of the grain under the Levy Orders could not be taxed as the transaction was not a "sale" within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, no such activity was liable to purchase tax and, accordingly, no purchase tax was levied. Subsequently, a change in the opinion of the Sales Tax Officer that the transaction would be exigible to purchase tax did not empower the Sales Tax Officer to reassess the same.