9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict, who had entered into an agreement with the Government for collection of such produce from their forests. He despatched some minor forest produce procured locally to one S.V. Ramalingam of Madurai for sale on consignment basis during the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. An assessment was completed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act) for the year 1972-73 without taking note of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act in relation to the minor forest produce consigned and sold through S.V. Ramalingam. If he had stopped with this finding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would have passed muster and been beyond challenge. But he went further, set aside the orders of assessment, and remitted them back to the assessing authority for imposing penalty under section 19(2) of the Act. This was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under section 34 of the Act to direct the assessing authority to impose penalty under section 19(2), as these tax revision cases can be disposed of on other premises. 3.. The assessment for 1972-73 which was impugned before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was one reopened under section 19. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held on the facts that the turnover which was brought to assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no question of levying any penalty under section 19(2) arises. The direction made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the year 1972-73 was outside the purview of section 19(2) and liable to be vacated on this preliminary ground itself. 4.. So far as the year 1973-74 is concerned, the order of assessment under challenge was the original order of assessment and not one made under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
