9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (9) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sales tax was Rs. 454-2-0. The appeal of Haji Majid Company was dismissed on 4th of March, 1953, and the second appeal was dismissed on 29th of October, 1953. On revision the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, reduced the amount to Rs. 315-5-6 by order dated 16th of July, 1954. In the meanwhile Allauddin Co. purchased the business of Haji Majid and Company. The petitioning company then applied for transfer of registration certificate in its name which was granted in due time. On 29th of January, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioning company stating that he had definite information which led him to believe that the turnover of their business assessable to sales tax for the 3rd and 4th terms ending with 31st of March, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment already made and, therefore, rule 71 made under the Act travels beyond the provisions of the Sales Tax Act and is, therefore, void being in excess of the rule-making power given by section 26 of the Act. It is admitted that if rule 71 is intra vires it was open to the Sales Tax Officer to reopen the assessment. It is, however, not necessary in the present petition to decide this question. I may state here that since the filing of this petition the Sales Tax Act has been amended and section 11-A has been added which gives specific power to the Commissioner to reopen an assessment already made. The point raised, therefore, is only of academic interest but of course it would affect the case of the petitioner. The petition fails ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on merits and after going through the accounts have come to the conclusion that the additional sales tax is payable by the petitioning company. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the petitioner suffers any manifest injustice by the failure of this petition. It was argued by Mr. Bhagwat Dayal that the petitioner is only a transferee from a company which was primarily liable to pay the tax. That, however, makes no difference as presumably the petitioning company has purchased the assets and liabilities of the previous company. It is to be noticed that this matter of non-liability to pay the tax was not raised before the Sales Tax Officer and I cannot say if it was raised latter because the other order is not before me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
