9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the commodity (rubber) when the maximum rate to be fully satisfied at the first stage itself, if the said sale is to an unregistered dealer, is the point involved. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased rubber from the third respondent in the year 1996-97 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 21,76,000. He had deposited a total sum of Rs. 27,56,190 which was inclusive of the stipulated income-tax, sales tax, surcharge and such other charges. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffered a huge loss and had to sell the commodity for a lesser price. It is also admitted that the petitioner was not a registered dealer at the time of transaction and as such, by virtue of the mandate under the statute, he was made to pay the total t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the second point of sale, as assessed by the assessing authority. The fact remains that exhibit P4 passed by the appellate authority has not been subjected to challenge by the petitioner. While so, the petitioner was served with exhibit P5 proceedings recomputing the actual tax liability, pursuant to exhibit P4 order passed by the appellate authority. As per the said proceedings, a total sum of Rs. 4,351 was shown as the balance tax payable at the rate of two per cent, with 10 per cent surcharge, i.e., Rs. 435 and thus for a total sum of Rs. 4,786. According to the petitioner, since the said amount was only a meagre one, he did not propose to have it challenged. But the said proceeding was sought to be revised by exhibit P6 notice issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered post on May 19, 2004. In view of the fact that the assessment at the second stage is upheld by the appellate authority as per exhibit P4 and since the same admittedly has not been challenged, there cannot be any grievance for the petitioner with regard to the said instance. That apart, the specific direction given by the appellate authority was to accept the books of accounts and to reckon the figures given therein. Though in exhibit P5, there is a mistake with reference to the actual figure whereby one digit has been inadvertently omitted (showing the figure as Rs. 2,17,555 in place of Rs. 21,75,753) the same was sought to be corrected by issuing exhibit P6 with reference to actual figures. Inspite of granting an opportunity to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
