1994 (2) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... umstances of the case this appeal has to be dismissed on the ground urged by the assessee himself. As stated above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is said to have been made on January 6, 1973, but it was served upon the assessee on November 21, 1973, i.e., precisely 10 1/2 months later. There is no explanation from the Deputy Commissioner why it was so delayed. If there had been a proper exp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent-assessee under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The order of assessment was made in the month of September, 1969. That order was sought to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act. After hearing the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders prejudicial to the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner says that he passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be bound by it. This was done by the High Court following its decision in T.R.C. No. 1 of 1976 pronounced on the same day [against which judgment Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 1977 (in this batch) has been filed]. We are of the opinion that the theory evolved by the High Court may not be really called for in the circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that this appeal has to be dismissed on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X