9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983-84 which he took up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of assessment to a very limited extent reducing the taxable turnover by an amount of Rs. 33,219.71. A perusal of Ex. P1 order of assessment for that year would show that this amount was liable to tax at 6 per cent so that the tax effect of this modification was only to reduce the tax payable by the petitioner for the year 1983-84 by an amount of Rs. 1,993.20, additional sales tax thereon at 15 per cent and surcharge at 5 per cent. This was all the reduction that was available to him pursuant to Ex. P2. The total of this will be less than Rs. 2,200. 2.. As mentioned earlier petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire dues from the petitioner. Petitioner also demurred to the demand as per Ex. P5 on some vague grounds without stating anything substantial. On the basis of these wrong premises the petitioner obtained an order of stay from this Court of the balance amount payable as per Ex. P5 and demanded as per the revenue recovery notice Ex. P6 subject to the payment of only an amount of Rs. 20,000. In fact the petitioner was clearly liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 46,827 plus Rs. 6,467 and even assuming that the case about the alleged non-implementation of Ex. P2 was correct the amount due as per Ex. P5 would have got reduced only by an amount of less than Rs. 2,200. Nevertheless, the petitioner chose to file this original petition on wrong pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicated that what Ex. P5 does is to calculate the total amount of exemption to which the petitioner was entitled from year to year from 1980-81 onwards to 1985-86 and how the total exemption of Rs. 3,18,149 got reduced from year to year and to state how in 1985-86 after exhausting the entire amount of exemption the amount mentioned in Ex. P5 is payable. He was called upon to pay the same by the demand Ex. P6. It is not known as to how this demand is in any manner illegal. 5.. Counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy me on this point and as I said earlier, the original petition has been filed evidently with a view to stall the revenue recovery proceedings when admittedly the amount was due. On the facts of this case I find abso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
