9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1962-63 by an order dated 7th December, 1964. It was later found that out of the total taxable turnover, a turnover of Rs. 3,30,483.46 was not covered by valid C form and that therefore they were liable to be taxed at 7 per cent. Accordingly a reassessment notice was issued on 28th February, 1968, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why this turnover should not be taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued, again pointing out that the turnover was liable to tax at 7 per cent in view of the fact that they are inter-State sales and not covered by C forms. After hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer made a fresh order on 30th March, 1974, bringing the turnover to tax at the rate of 7 per cent. The appeal preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessment order dated 7th December, 1964. That was sought to be revised by the notice dated 28th February, 1968, proposing to subject the turnover to a tax of 7 per cent. That proceeding, which was initiated by that notice, continued up to the stage when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made his order. The mistake committed in subjecting the turnover to 3 per cent tax by the reassessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmanaswami Chettiar & Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 327 and other cases cited therein.
In the result, therefore, the reassessment order was within time and therefore there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. No other points are argued in this petition. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed withcosts. Counsel's fee Rs. 250. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
