9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (in short, "the Act"). The matter relates to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1980-81. The assessments relating to the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 were reopened under section 19 of the Act. It is the revised orders of those years reopening the assessment, that are impugned in these revisions. The petitioner, a limited company, is manufacturing and selling ice-creams under the trade name "Joy Ice Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Tribunal and raised two grounds. The first ground was that the reopening of the assessment for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 was unauthorised. The second and more important ground that was raised was that ice-creams sold in cups and icesticks sold in paper bags do not come under the category mentioned in item 25H(viii) of the First Schedule to the Act, before its amendment by Act 19 of 1980 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. On this basis, it is idle to contend that the reopening of the assessments for the first three years is unauthorised. Based on misconception or misunderstanding, the assessing authority initially assessed the turnover of the petitioner relating to ice-creams and ice-sticks only at 4 per cent. When the assessing authority came to know that the aforesaid goods are registered under the Trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called party pack, family pack and bulk pack; ii. Packing in plastic balls called joy ball; iii. Unit system of packing cups in grey board wrapper with ventilation holes; iv. Ice-cream sticks in paper bags; and v. Packing in covers. The ice-creams sold in cups and ice-sticks sold in paper bags are marketed under the trade name or brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. We concur with the aforesaid finding and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. 4.. There is no merit in this tax revision case. It is dismissed. The matter relates to six different years and the petitioner has paid six court fees, Rs. 600 for the tax revision case. We dismiss this tax revision case with costs, including counsel's fee Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
