9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act): "1. Whether the Board has jurisdiction to entertain revision against the notice of demand? 2.. Whether the notice of demand is in order? 3.. Whether the Board rightly stayed the recovery of demand notwithstanding the bar of entertaining the revision under the second proviso to subsection (2) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that by the said order the learned Member of the Board of Revenue had passed an interim order in the revision petition filed by the opposite party whereby the proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 29,404.79 from the opposite party were stayed and a notice was given to the State to appear and show cause on 8th May, 1970. It would, thus, appear that the aforesaid order dated 12th March, 1970, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Act, 1922. The said expression came for construction before the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC). In the said case, the Supreme Court, after considering the various decisions on the subject, has summed up the position as under: "(1) When a question is raised before the Tribunal and is dealt with by it, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, because in the present case the questions which have been referred to this Court for opinion, were neither raised before the Board of Revenue, nor were they considered by it in its order dated 12th March, 1970. It must, therefore, be concluded that the questions of law which have been referred to this Court do not arise out of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12th March, 1970. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
