Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1981 (1) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad used its own bardana, the value of which was Rs. 34,051.73. In the opinion of the Sales Tax Officer these sales of bardana were liable to be treated as inter-State sales. The contention of the assessee was that since it had made supplies of bardana from its own account, the same could not be treated as sales liable to tax under the Central Act. That argument was repelled and the aforesaid amount was brought to tax. In respect of certain other inter-State sales of foodgrains to the extent of Rs. 7,555, the assessee's claim for concessional rate of tax was not accepted. The assessee filed an appeal and disputed the levy of tax on the value of bardana, that is, Rs. 34,051.73, and denial of concessional rate on sales of Rs. 7,555. The appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee took up the matter in revision before the Additional Judge (Revisions). The learned Additional Judge (Revisions) without referring to this aspect of the case, accepted the assessee's contention and held that the disputed turnover could not be subjected to tax under the Central Act. Aggrieved, the department has filed the present revision. It was submitted before me by the learned standing counsel that the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) was erroneous. He could not have allowed the assessee to reagitate this point inasmuch as the assessee had not filed any revision against the appellate order dated 6th August, 1965, in which a clear finding had been recorded that the disputed turnover was liable to be taxed under th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on. After that remand the Sales Tax Officer was required only to decide that part of the case keeping in view the directions given by the appellate court. No other question in respect of which the order of the appellate authority had been allowed to become final could have been allowed to be reagitated after remand. On this view the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) were right in repelling the attempt of the assessee to reagitate this point and unfortunately the Additional Judge (Revisions) gave a finding on it on merits without keeping this aspect in view. The decision of the Full Bench in Ram Dayal Harbilas case [1979] 44 STC 84 (FB); 1979 UPTC 999 (FB) does not help the assessee in this behalf. In that case on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ance the following question was referred to this Court for its opinion: "Whether, having regard to the language of the remand order made by the appellate authority, the assessing authority was competent to examine the case afresh and to assess tax on enhanced turnover in the reassessment proceedings after remand?" Ultimately the case was referred to the Full Bench because there was a conflict of opinion on this question in some decisions of this Court and the question referred to the Full Bench was: "Where the order of assessment is set aside by the appellate or revising authority which remands the case to the assessing authority with certain directions for making a fresh assessment, has the assessing authority subject to carrying out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellate authority and has been remanded with a direction for making a fresh assessment, the assessing authority, subject to carrying out such directions as given by the appellate authority has the same powers to make assessment as it originally had in making an assessment under section 7 of the Act. However, where an assessment has been set aside and remanded for making it afresh by a revising authority, the jurisdiction of the assessing authority is confined to the direction given by the revising authority. In the present case, as noted above, the assessment had not been set aside and the case had not been remanded for making a fresh assessment. A part of the assessment was confirmed while in regard to a particular question the case was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates