9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The proceedings relate to assessment year 1983-84. The revisionist is an automobile dealer and had sold Telco diesel vehicles, inter alia, on hire-purchase basis. The assessment for the year 1983-84 was completed on November 1, 1985. Later on proceedings under section 3-B of the Act, were initiated against the revisionist for the alleged misuse of form III-A in so far as the vehicles sold on hire-purchase basis were concerned. Form III-A contains a declaration that the goods have been purchased for sale in the same condition. The case of the revisionist is that the chassis of the vehicle was purchased by the assessee from its manufacturer. Telco were not sold in the same condition but were so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment by instalment has been included within the scope of "sale" as defined in section 2(h) of the Act. It was not the case of the dealer that the vehicles were not delivered to the purchaser on hire-purchase basis during the period relevant to assessment year 1983-84. Therefore, this being an admitted fact the learned Tribunal could have itself decided the issue in accordance with the amended definition and there was no fact which needed to be investigated and determined by the assessing officer. The remand of the matter to the assessing officer, therefore, was unjustified. The dealer-revisionist had also raised the plea of limitation before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. This was purely legal plea and shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of limitation was not an issue in that case. Reliance is also placed on Mahabir Wire Netting Industries v. Sales Tax Officer 1987 UPTC 16. In this case the legislative competence of levy of penalty under section 4-B and the question whether notice under section 3-B can be issued after finalisation of the assessment year were involved. Both the points were decided in favour of the revisionist. However, the question about the nature of an order passed under section 3-B, i.e., whether such an order amounts to an assessment order within the meaning of section 21(2) was not raised. Lastly, learned Standing Counsel pressed into service the non obstante clause with which section 3-B begins. It says "notwithstanding anything to the contrary con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
