9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to sales tax for the year 1961-62 by the Sales Tax Officer, Durg, vide his order dated 29th June, 1964. In this assessment order, the Sales Tax Officer accepted certain C forms submitted by the dealers, even though they were deficient in material particulars, on the basis of letters of the buyers produced by the dealer in which the deficient particulars had been mentioned. The case was reopened by the Sales Tax Officer under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that defective C forms were accepted in the order of initial assessment dated 29th June, 1964. By order dated 13th November, 1969, reassessment was made rejecting the defective C forms and additional tax g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of section 19(1) to the case, that question did not remain open as the order passed in revision had become final and that the only surviving question was the extent to which the defective C forms could be accepted in accordance with the directions given in the order passed in revision making the remand to the Sales Tax Officer. 5.. The dealer thereafter preferred second appeal to the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the order dated 4th November, 1976 in which it has been held that the power of reopening assessment given by section 19(1) of the Act was not available in the present case. It is only on this ground that the Tribunal has set aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 passed by the Sales Tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the appeal and set aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. We may also observe that the construction by the Tribunal of section 19(1) of the Act permitting reassessment is contrary to the view taken on this point in two decisions of this Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jeewa Khan [1978] 42 STC 95 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Soubhagmal [1979] 44 STC 182. 7.. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Department and against the dealer as under: "The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 passed by the assessing authority on reassessment." No co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
