9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, who accepted the account books of the applicant and allowed the appeals. Thereafter an application under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the mistake was moved by the applicant before the said Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who allowed it vide order dated April 14, 1982. It was held by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that the applicant had been issued a licence under the then existing section 3-E of the Act and after it had been verified that the principal on whose behalf the applicant had made purchases in his commission agency had deposited the tax, the applicant was not liable for the same. Accordingly tax reliefs amounting to Rs. 1,444.19, Rs. 5,253.18 and Rs. 2,649.24 in respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "(1) Any dealer or any (2) Any person aggrieved (1) Any person aggrieved other person aggrieved by an order passed by by an order made by any order made by an appellate authority under sub-section (2) the assessing authority, under section 9 or by or sub-section (5) of other than an order the revising authority section 10 or by an mentioned in secunder section 10-B or order passed under tion 10-A may, within by a decision given by section 22 by the Trithirty days from the the Commissioner of bunal may, within date of service of the Sales Tax under secninety days from the copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided for not only against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, under section 10 but also against an order passed under section 22 of the Act. The legislative history of section 11 shows that originally there was no provision that a revision lies in this Court against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 22 of the Act. However, by amending Act No. 10 of 1979 it was specifically provided that a revision lies to this Court under section II of the Act even against a decision given by the Tribunal under section 22 of the Act. It was held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Laxmi Dal Mills, Aligarh 1978 UPTC 417, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madhesia Trading Company, Basti 1979 UPTC 1024 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also worthy of notice that sub-section (4) of section 9 also provides that an order passed under this section (section 9) shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be final. Therefore, the order passed under section 9(3) of the Act is final subject to any order passed under section 10 or section 11 of the Act. There seems to be no logic in the Legislature for having provided a remedy against an order passed under section 22 of the Act by an assessing authority or by the Tribunal but having denied it in a case where such an order is passed by the first appellate authority. In fact order passed under section 22 of the Act by the first appellate authority is by way of review or is in the nature of rectification of mistake and therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
