9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 19th September, 1979, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Cuddalore. The assessee is a dealer in petroleum products. It sold a car and claimed exemption from tax, in respect of the turnover relating to the same, on the ground that its sale was only a second sale, as it had purchased the car from one Muthuswami in this State itself. The Deputy Commercial Tax Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He concluded: "In the absence of any evidence to show that the appellants are the first sellers of the car in the State and relying on the recent decision in the case of Govindan & Company v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal[1973] 32 S.T.C. 188., the revised assessment made for 1972-73 on Rs. 6,700 levying the tax and penalty of Rs. 1,005.00 and Rs. 1,508.00 respectively is set aside and the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, contended that the ground for assessment given by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was different from the ground for assessment given by the Board in the sense that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer proceeded on the basis that the assessee must prove that the earlier sale had suffered tax, while the Board proceeded only on the basis that the earlier sale was a taxable sale in the State. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven an opportunity to the appellant to meet the new ground. The Board in this case in the notice which it issued to the appel. lant herein had given it that opportunity by pointing out that the appellant would be entitled to claim exemption only if it proved that there was an earlier taxable sale in the State and even after the opportunity contemplated was made available to the appellant, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
