9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated July 22, 1985 (annexures E1 and E2) passed by respondent No. 1 as well as the revisional order dated January 11, 1988 (annexure H) passed by respondent No. 2, the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Satna and the penalty imposed on the petitioner under section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2.. The petitioner is a registered dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the petitioner's business for two periods by enhancing the same by Rs. 10,000 in the first period and Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) in the second period. The petitioner was not satisfied by the said assessment and, therefore, challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Satna, in appeal. The Deputy Commissioner remanded the case with the direction for fresh assessment. After reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x parte order on July 19, 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was sufficient reason for the petitioner for not appearing before respondent No. 1 on July 19, 1985 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 should not have proceeded ex parte and was not justified in making ex parte assessment. It may be pointed out here that respondents in their return have altogether denied the rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cent, at which the petitioner has been charged. This apart, the respondents in reply to ground No. VII, have admitted in their return that rate of sales tax on sales of cycles was reduced from 8 per cent to 6 per cent by the notification referred to above. That being so, the respondents were absolutely incorrect and unjustified in subjecting the petitioner to the tax at the rate of 8 per cent. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
