|
|
|
|
|
Sales Tax Review |
|
June 2006 |
|
Representation And Responses |
-
K. G. Garkar. B.Com., A.C.A.
Offi. : 2261 6534
Resi. : 2618 3707
Kiran Garkar & Co.
Chartered Accountants
6, Development Bank Bldg., 1st Floor, Palton Road, MUMBAI – 400 001.
17-6-2006
To
Shri B. C. Khatua
Hon'ble Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Maharashtra State
Respected Sir,
About : Suggestions for "How to fill new return" link
available on website.
I have gone through the pop up notes attached to Form
221. I wish to bring out practical problem likely to crop up.
For Box column 7(m), it reads: "It should be tallied with
the total of net turnover of purchases as per the column no. 8."
[Underline provided by me.]
For Box 8, it reads: "Total of tax rate wise analysis of
within the State purchases from registered dealers eligible for set-off
should be equal to Box 7(m)"
I fear that if these instructions, if given to the
Returns branch would cause lot of defect memos being issued. The reasons are
as under:
-
The purchase side nowhere calls for tax paid on
purchases to be reduced separately. Please note that for sales it has been
provided for separately.
-
Even pop up note for box 7(k) states that, "Other
allowable deductions include non-taxable charges, such as, labour charges,
value of purchases return during the period. Adjustment of set-off on
account of purchases returns to be shown in 9(j)".
Herein also there is no reference to reduce tax paid on purchases.
-
If the pop notes mentioned above are followed then
there are chances that figure of Box 7(m) would be gross figure; i.e.,
including tax paid on purchases but figure if compared to net figure of
Box 8 would never tally. With a feeling that return is arithmetically
incorrect, defect memos may be issued.
I would request you to kindly look into practical problem
likely to arise. Instructions may be given that if Box (m) and Box 8 match
for gross figures then also it should be accepted, Pop up note appearing in
Box 7(m) should be amended to say Gross figures.
I would give short example to make my point clear.
Purchase = [100+4] and [200+25] = 329. Box (m) would show
329 and not net amount 300 (as expected in Pop up note) for the reasons
given above.
|
Box 8 would show |
4% |
100 |
4 |
| |
|
12.5% |
200 |
25 |
| |
|
|
300 |
29 |
Thus 329 would match if total of Box 8 is
considered.
I am sure that you will look into the matter and do the
needful.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Kiran G. Garkar
05-06-2006
-
To
Shri Ajay Deoras,
The Deputy Commissioner,
(Central Repository),
Mumbai
Respected Sir,
I read your reply in Sales Tax Review of May 2006, which
was written to Mr. H. P. Bhuta. Usually, it is my common experience that
Government officers try to avoid answers or will give the answers in brief.
But your answer in this letter is very much elaborative & satisfactorily
replied.
Your appeal to make positive suggestions and also writing
your telephone number in the letter is highly appreciable.
I take this opportunity to congratulate you for such an
endeavour. I expect all other officers to follow the same in their
day-to-day work which will create more transparency in the department.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Adv. Kishor Lulla
Law & Representation Committee
June 23, 2006
-
To,
The Hon’ble Comm. of Sales Tax
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
Sub : Application for administrative relief
Ref : GR No.STA-2006/76-CA-1/Mantralaya dt. 25-5-2006 :
Trade Circular No.16T/2006 dt. 8-6-2006
Dear Sir,
We refer to the circular issued by your good offices in
respect of administrative relief on sale of certain products on which the
rate of sales tax for the month of April 2006 was either 4% or 12.5 %
whereas the same has been made NIL or 4%, as the case may be w.e.f.
1-5-2006.
The GR as also the circular is silent on the following
issues and hence clarification is sought.
-
Many dealers in food grains (rice, wheat, pulses, etc.)
are not registered under the MVAT Act. Technically speaking, such dealers
are also liable to pay tax for the sales effected in the month of April
06. Can they avail the benefit of administrative relief?
-
Para 7.B of the circular requires the dealer to file
return for the month of April 06 and pay the taxes by 25.6.06 (within one
month of the date of GR). Majority of the dealer in food grains, dhania,
methi, suva, towels, etc would be required to file quarterly or half
yearly returns. Should they file monthly April 06 returns?
-
Dealers who are required to file monthly return would
have filed the April 06 return by 21.5.06 and would have paid the taxes to
the extent of collection of such taxes. Is it that revised return is to be
filed and claim administrative relief?
-
The scheme to claim administrative relief has not
provided the format in which the application to avail the benefit be made.
In the circumstances, there would not be any standardization of such
applications. Moreover, the trade circular has not prescribed the
authority with whom such applications be filed. In the circumstances,
dealers would have filed such applications either with offices of the
assessing authority (under the BST Act), Range Dy Comm. Of Sales Tax (ADM),
Divisional Jt. Comm. Of Sales Tax or the Commissioner of sales Tax. Please
issue appropriate instructions and consider the applications already
filed.
It is in this background, submitted that necessary
instructions be issued immediately so that dealers (registered as also
unregistered) can avail the benefits intended by the Govt as per the
resolutions.
The time for making such applications is running short
and as such as the last date being 25-5-2006 (Sunday) applications filed on
Monday i.e. 26-6-2006 may also be considered in time. Further it is prayed
that the time for compliance under the GR may be extended by at least 2
months time so that large number of dealers can take advantage of it.
Immediate action in the matter will be highly
appreciated.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Rajat Talati)
|
|
|
