9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These matters relate to the assessment of sales tax for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 of M/s. Motilal Omprakash of Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee"). The Reference Application No. 234 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1967-68 and the demand notice, which is in dispute, is for a sum of Rs. 90.72. The Reference Application No. 235 of 1975 relates to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of difference between the rate of 7 per cent which should have been charged for the sale of the aforesaid articles, and the rate of 6 per cent, which was actually charged in the earlier assessment orders. It is not in dispute that the amount, which forms the subject-matter of these two reference applications, namely, Rs. 90.72 in one case and Rs. 258.90 in another case, is exceedingly small and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for both the parties are agreed that the question, which is sought to be referred in both the reference applications, stands decided, so far as this Court is concerned, by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. State of RajasthanI.L.R. [1968] 18 Raj. 188. , wherein an identical question was raised before this Court and it was observed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan holding that the proceedings under section 12 of the Act could not be taken, when the assessment was made at a lower rate than that prescribed under the Act, cannot be sustained, in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in the Indian Home Pipe Co.'s case(1). The orders passed by the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in any of these two matters where the amount involved is altogether insignificant. In the result, although we disapprove of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in these two matters as they do not represent the correct legal position, yet we do not consider it proper and necessary to call for references from the Board of Revenue under section 15 of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
