1973 (4) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appeal on 1st August, 1966, and 16th August, 1966. By that time the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.). was rendered in January, 1966. It is said, the assessee wanted to take advantage of the said decision and question the assessment in relation to another turnover of Rs. 30,00,000 and odd. When the petitioner approached the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was informed that final orders had been passed in the appeal. Therefore, the assessee was not able to file additional grounds of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Ultimately, the appellate authority passed an order on 24th November, 1966, allowing the appeal in its entiret .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 31(3). In this case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in its entirety. Therefore, the assessee could not have any objection to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as such. It may be that the assessee may have an objection to the original order of assessment, in so far as it has not taken note of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. But, so long as the assessee has not disputed the turnover of Rs. 30,00,000 and odd before the appellate authority, he cannot straightaway file an appeal before the Tribunal in respect of the said turnover. The Tribunal pertinently pointed out that, even though the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as right in rejecting the appeal as not maintainable. Against the same order of the Tribunal, which is now before us, the assessee filed Writ Petition No. 427 of 1970, reported as Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer[1970] 26 S.T.C. 486. and a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, considered the order of the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction correctly in not entertaining the appeal relating to the turnover which was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Tribunal was, therefore, upheld. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X