9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Brothers. According to the assessee, the said purchase of cotton was in the course of import. The contention was negatived by the assessing authority, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the contention. The Board of Revenue, however, in exercise of its power under section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, suo motu set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly imported the cotton and sold the same to the assessee. According to the assessee, the importer, Messrs. Volkart Brothers, cannot sell the cotton to anyone else, as the cotton had been imported on the actual user's licence issued to the assessee and that, therefore, the sale by the importer, Messrs. Volkart Brothers, to the assessee was in the course of import. The learned counsel for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras' rested on these two distinguishing factors and that these distinguishing factors did not obtain in the present case. We are not in a position to accept the view that there is any distinction between the facts of the case in Khosla Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras', and of the case here. In Khosla Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case squarely fall within the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.). as also the decision of this court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras[1967] 20 S.T.C. 150., which follows the decision of the Supreme Court. In our view, the decision of the Board of Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
