9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er seeks quashing of orders dated 1st June, 1989 whereby reassessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1983-84 was finalized. The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 23rd January, 1990 whereby the appeal of the petitioner in respect of assessment for the year 1985-86 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Zone-V. The aforesaid orders (hereinafter referred to the impugned orders‟) were passed by the authorities under the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner is a registered partnership registered under the Delhi Sales Act, 1975 as well as the Central Sales Act, 1956. Its business consist of manufacturing of cycle parts in general and Fork legs in particular which is carrying on the business under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990 were passed whereby the petitioner was taxed at the rate of 7% on the purchase welding rods worth ₹ 64558/- and an additional amount of ₹ 4519/- was credited. Against this order, the petitioner went in appeal and the appellate authority confirmed the orders thereby dismissing the appeal vide orders dated 12th August, 1991. After the dismissal of this appeal, the petitioner approached this court by way of present petition challenging the reassessment order dated 1st June, 1989 in respect of assessment year 1983-84 and order dated 12th August, 1991 in respect of assessment year 1985-86. Perusal of the orders of the Sales Tax authorities below reveled shows that they have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) needed reconsideration and matter was referred to the larger Bench. This is how the reference arises for decision as to whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Standard Metal Industries (supra) still holds the field, and if not, what would be the impact thereof in the present writ petition. 7. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.02.2011, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Bhatia, who was present in the Court was requested to assist, as he is taken on the panel of the Advocates for Sales Tax Department. Though he informed that notification for his appointment is yet to be issued, on our request he agreed to assist. According to him, it appears that this petitioner firm stood dissolved much earlier an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
