9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all these writ petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition No.771/2004. 2. Challenging the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 in respect of the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 (State), the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition may be stated that the petitioner - company is engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and selling in consumer products namely toilet soap, washing soap, face wash and detergents etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declarations and determined additional demand of Rs. 12,33,339.00/- in the State case and Rs. 1,07,56,526.00/- in Central case. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.02.1995 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore allowed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 29.01.1996 (Annexure P/3) and while remanding the matter directed the Assessing Authority to make aware the petitioner with the reasons for making best judgment assessments. He also directed to complete the fresh assessment, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation against the proposed additions. 5. In the fresh pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s revision vide order dated 21.04.2003 (Annexure P/10). The Revisional Authority held that in the application the petitioner did not specify the period which will be required by it for reconstructing the data and submitting the details. By observing thus, the revision was dismissed maintaining the order passed by the Assessing Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 8. The respondents have filed the return and have justified the passing of the impugned orders by the Assessing Authority and the Revisional Authority. According to the respondents, the Authorities had granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit the documents, but it failed to avail the same. 9. Having considered the averments made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner would submit duplicate copy of the declaration and other relevant material. This specific time limit if not asked for by the petitioner could have been fixed by the Revisional Authority itself.
10. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this petition deserves to be disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority with a liberty to the petitioner to submit duplicate declarations and supporting material before the Revisional Authority within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Revisional Authority. The petitioner shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 26.06.2013.
The petition stands disposed of.
C. c. within a week.
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
