9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1989. Common questions arise for consideration in the above three tax revision cases. 2.. We heard counsel for the petitioner in the three revisions. Mr. Jose Joseph and also counsel for the respondent/Revenue-Senior Government Pleader Mr. V.C. James. The questions posed for consideration in the above cases are as follows: T.R.C. No. 106 of 1992: 1.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of tax under section 5A on the petitioner is valid and sustainable? 2.. Whether section 5A is enforceable and workable on the basis of the rules framed in 1963 while section 5A was inserted only with effect from April 1, 1970? 3.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decide any question of law. Counsel for the petitioners/assessees, Mr. Jose Joseph could not meet the said point. Counsel for the petitioners stated that these points were not raised before the Appellate Tribunal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the preliminary objection taken by the learned Government Pleader should prevail. The questions formulated for the decision of this Court were never mooted or raised before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had no occasion to adjudicate those questions. It cannot be stated that the Appellate Tribunal decided any question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The revisions filed under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are therefore inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 3, 1991. On the merits also, T.R.C. No. 106 of 1992 deserves to be dismissed. We hold so. 6.. Similarly, in T.R.C. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1992, the assessee is a hotelier. The assessments relate to the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. There was an inspection of the business premises of the assessee on October 31, 1986. Huge suppressions were found out. Proper books of account were not available. For both the years, there were irregularities in the accounts. The assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal held, that in view of the defects noticed for both the years, the returns and the accounts could not be accepted. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the common order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
