9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the revisional authority. Against that order, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, remanded a portion regarding the tax levied, with a direction to pass a fresh order, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to give explanation. As per the order of the Tribunal, the revisional authority had passed fresh order. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed appeal disputing the liability on the entire revised turnover and levy of penalty. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in his order dated July 28, 1989 set aside the order of the revisional authority. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had also held that nowhere in the assessment order, revisional authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joint Commissioner for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessee is in appeal before this Court. 5.. According to the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, in order to set aside the order passed by the AAC dated July 28, 1989, the Joint Commissioner has relied upon a report filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Thanjavur dated March 18, 1993. So also, by relying upon the reports filed on April 15, 1993 and May 11, 1993, the Joint Commissioner came to the conclusion that AAC was not correct in holding that the assessee is only decorticating the groundnut and is not indulging in the sale of groundnut. It was submitted that these reports were obtained from various ryots behind the back of the assessee, after the order was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order passed by the assessing authority and held that the assessee is only decorticating groundnut gathered from the ryots and the assessee is not a dealer in groundnut. Based upon the evidence available on record, AAC passed the abovesaid order dated July 28, 1989. According to the Joint Commissioner, the orders passed by the AAC for the assessment years under consideration are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, because the materials gathered by the reports dated March 18, 1993, April 15, 1993 and May 11, 1993 were not considered by the AAC. It remains to be seen that all those reports were gathered after the order was passed by the AAC on July 28, 1989. While exercising jurisdiction under section 34 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
