9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in furtherance thereof, the tribunal mentioned about allowing of the appeal of the Respondent inadvertently Accepting Tax Rate @ 4% could not have been the intention of petitioner before the Tribunal nor the intention of the Tribunal as all throughout the issue of charging rate of tax of 4% was challenged, was allowed by the DC(A) and it was the respondent, who was in appeal before the Tribunal. - SB SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.752/1999 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2013 - Jainendra Kumar Ranka,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singhal For the Respondet : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal JUDGMENT Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee under section 15(1)/(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1954 against the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only payable at the rate of 1% only. In the first appellate proceedings, the learned DC(A) accepted the contention of the petitioner and directed to apply the tax @1%. Both the parties, the petitioner and the respondent preferred appeals before the Tribunal on different grounds and it was pleaded before the Tribunal that it collected the salestax @ 4% inadvertently and even deposited the entire tax collected in the Government Treasury though the applicable rate of charging tax was 1% only. In so far as factum of refund of differential amount is concerned, counsel for the petitioner accepted and conceded before the Tribunal that the petitioner has not claimed any amount of refund of 3% nor would it claim the differential amount of 3% from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax when there was concession before the Tribunal, and on that concession appeal of Respondent was allowed therefore the revision petition does not lie when there is a clear cut admission before the Tribunal, the challenge now for the levy of tax @4% to 1% is totally unjustified. He further submitted that the petitioner had himself collected tax @ 4% therefore now cannot claim that rate was 1% only. He further submitted that had there been any grievance to the petitioner he could have approached the Tribunal, again by moving a rectification application and thus submitted that the instant revision petition has no force. He however, admitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court,in the case of assessee itself, has already decided this very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x of 4% was challenged, was allowed by the DC(A) and it was the respondent, who was in appeal before the Tribunal. It is further apparent that this very issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Hindusatan Copper Limited (Supra), and in view of the aforesaid the petitioner charged tax @1% and was also paying the same @1% only, the respondent Authorities have also accepted this proposition. In so far as question No.2 i.e. refund of excess tax paid is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner very candidly submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the claim of refund of excess of differential amount as was pleaded before the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
