9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to Rs. 9,11,500. The petitioner filed its sales tax returns under the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, under the local Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Two orders were passed on 10th April, 1978. The aforesaid sales, which according to the petitioner herein were in the course of export, were sought to be taxed under the local Act. Under the Central Sales Tax Act another order dated 10th April, 1978 was passed. As per the said order there was no tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner filed one appeal against the assessment order pertaining to the local tax. By order dated 16th September, 1982, the Assistant Commissioner observed that the aforesaid turnover was taxable under the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be evident, the assessing authority has assumed jurisdiction where he had none. The contention of the petitioner is that the original assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act having become final on 10th April, 1978, the assessing authority could not pass the impugned order dated 12th September, 1986, by treating this as a remand case. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the proceedings were still alive and the assessing authority had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order either by virtue of the provisions of section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act or section 48(6) of the said Act. The proceedings under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act are independent of each other. Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 46 pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal arising out of the assessment order under the local Act. Learned counsel for the respondents cannot rely on section 46 in the present case because, as already mentioned herein above, the period for taking action under that Act came to an end oil 10th April, 1983. The impugned order in the present case had been passed more than three years thereafter. This is also not a case which could be regarded as having been remanded by the appellate authority. The appellate authority was not seized of any appeal arising under the Central Act. It was dealing with appeal under the provisions of the local Act. If any direction had been issued with regard to the taxability of some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
