9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r proposed to tax the turnover under section 5(1) of the Act treating it as a sale of "imitation jari". The petitioners challenged the notices in Writ Petitions Nos. 19754 to 19761 of 1986. The said writ petitions were disposed of on February 2, 1988*. The notices were quashed by this Court. There is also no dispute that the said order was affirmed by a Bench of this Court by dismissing the writ appeals filed by the Revenue. In the earlier proceedings, the revisional authority proposed to hold that the cases in question were covered by section 5(1) and not by entry 49 of the Second Schedule. The difference of the tax would be 1 per cent. The petitioners contended that they are all dealers in gold-thread and that they are not dealers in imit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry 49 of the Second Schedule, I propose to deal with this point also in these writ petitions." After discussing the question the learned Judge concluded as follows: "Entry 49 as amended by Act 27 of 1985, therefore, gives a clear indication as to the intention of the Legislature for the purpose of understanding and interpreting the entry before amendment. It is seen that the amended entry is made comprehensive to include all types of imitation jari. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the interpretation of the entry before amendment that it was meant to tax only the 'gold-thread' or 'jari' and not any other kind of imitation jari. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed, and the notices issued by the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by investigating the facts. Therefore the question arises, whether the assessing authority can now initiate action in respect of the same subject-matter, raising the taxability question in a different manner. 6.. The earlier decision resulted in upholding the levy of tax under entry 49 of the Second Schedule; the earlier decision holds that goods were not taxable under section 5(1). The earlier decision was reached on the assumption that goods were "gold-threads". This assumption was fundamental to the earlier decision. It is a principle of law that plea of estoppel will cover not only the decisions but in substance the ratio of what is fundamental to that decision. The ground work for a decision is as much conclusive as the decision its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
