9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment dated 28th September, 1982, of a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, dismissing the special appeal against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1978, of a Single Bench in a revision against the order dated 28th April, 1971 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur. The material facts are stated hereafter. The assessee claimed deduction of certain sales from a tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax by the purchasing registered dealer of these last point goods, the selling dealer was also liable for payment of tax. This contention was rejected. Accordingly, the sales tax charged from the assessee, amounting to Rs. 1,448.50, on sales amounting to Rs. 72,424.51 was set aside. The department filed a revision against that order. So the Board of Revenue which was first heard by a Single B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t payment of tax by the purchasing registered dealer and the only argument advanced was that notwithstanding such a payment by the purchasing registered dealer, the liability for payment of tax, according to the notification, by the assessee survives in addition. In other words, payment of tax for the same sale transaction by the purchasing registered dealer was never in controversy before the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
