9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, the Revenue Board, Ajmer, by its order dated March 26, 1984, had referred the following four questions to the Rajasthan High Court for answering by it: 1.. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the making of the partners as parties is necessary as the dissolution of the firm has taken place only at the time of filing of applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for revision. On the establishment of this Tribunal, it stood transferred to it under section 15, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. 2.. The facts of the case may be summarised thus: The respondent-firm, M/s. Bachhu Bhai Shanti Bhai Bros., Jaipur, was carrying on the business of manufacturing and importing copper wire and rods. Assessment order in respect of Central sales tax was passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minary objection and dismissed the revision petition by its order dated April 18, 1974. An application for making a reference was made but it could not be decided within 180 days. Thereafter, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur was moved for directing the Board of Revenue for making a reference. By its order dated September 27, 1983, the Rajasthan High Court directed the Board of Revenue to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.. The learned counsel for the dealer-respondent duly supported the order of the Revenue Board dated April 18, 1974 allowing the said preliminary objection. 5.. The matter relates to the assessment year 1965-66 and the disputed tax is to the tune of Rs. 412.07 only. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient to discuss the matter in detail. Under the law, as then stood, there was no colum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
