NARAIN DUTT Vs. DY-EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY, (CZ), MANDI HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of Assessing authority dated 20.10.2000 & that of the 1st Appellate Authority dated 22 -5 -2004. The brief facts of this case are that the carriage of Khair wood togs worth Rs.23,30,000/ - during the years 1996 -97 & 1997 -98 respectively, out of the territory of Bilaspur M.P. Barrier at Naina Devi, came to the knowledge of Assessing Authority of Bilaspur District. This much quantity of logs wood was sold to M/s Mahesh Katha Udyog of Una. The declaration about the carriage had been made in the Form of ST -XXVI at Barrier. On this information the mandatory notice under section 14(6) of H.P. General Sales Tax Act 1968 was sent to the appellate, but as the appellant did not co -operate so the assessment was done ex -parte on 20.10.2000. The assessing Authority raised a demand of Rs.42,000/ - as tax Tax.8,000/, as penalties u/s 14(6) and u/s 35(2) for the years 1996 -97 and Rs.3,12,000/ - as tax, Rs.48,000/ - as penalties u/s 14(6) and I 35(2) for the year 1997 & 1998 respectively. In fact the appellant used to purchase I standing trees of Khair Wood from the Jamindars and used to process the wood of these trees, which included (felling, cutting and making of loss) and then used to sell it to Katha Factories. Thus the act of the appellant was taxable being the first seller. The first appellate authority though upheld the earlier order, yet decreased taxable turnover of the appellant, by 10% and remanded the cases for taking the correct figures of taxable turnover. The appellant has come in appeal on the following grounds: -

(3.) After the perusal of the order of the first appellate authority and the argument addressed by the Ld. AETC (L) it is clear that the appellant was a processor. The first appellate authority has already remanded the case to the Assessing Authority, by reducing the figures of taxable turnovers from Rs.3,50,000/ - to Rs.3,44,000/ - for the year 1996 -97 and from Rs.26,00,000/ - and Rs.23,30,000/ - for the year 1997 -98 and appears to have rightly been ordered for the re -determination of the tax liability for these years along with the liability to pay interest and penalty on these new figures u/s Section 14(6) and Section 35 of the Act. In the interest of justice the re -determination of the tax liability, penalty and interest if any, if the most appropriate remedy. However it is necessary to give the appellant due opportunity to prove his status with respect to disputed transaction. His contention that he is the second seller also needs to be examined. The appeal is accepted and the case is remanded back to the Assessing authority to do the needful, as per above directions and decide the case within a period of two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The file after completion be consigned to the record room.