9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 958 (for short the Act ). 3.. This petition relates to the assessment of petitioner s firm to sales tax under the Act, for the period commencing from November 6, 1972 to October 25, 1973. 4.. Petitioner claimed benefit of deduction under section 2(r)(iv) of the Act, in respect of the sales made against declaration submitted by him in form No. XII. The said sales were made to one M/s. N.A. Trading Company. Submission of declaration forms in form No. XII contemplates, with regard to tax-paid goods made by one registered dealer to another registered dealer. Petitioner also claimed deduction with regard to sales amounting to Rs. 4,74,728 effected by it to its commission agent, i.e., M/s. N.A. Trading Company. 5.. Petitioner has also plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority that the registration of M/s. N.A. Trading Company has been cancelled retrospectively. 8.. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner, preferred further revision under section 39(1) of the Act before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. The revisional authority has also concurred with the appellate authority and the assessing authority. Consequently and in the result, petitioner s revision has also been dismissed. 9.. Petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the same. 10.. Respondents have filed their reply in oppugnation. They have contended that after recording of findings of fact by the respondents, the case calls for no interference. 11.. I have heard the counsel for the parties, perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment of this High Court has been passed after the order by the revisional authority had been passed. Therefore, this judgment could not be brought to the notice of the revisional authority. 16.. Following this judgment, division Bench has passed another order, which is reported in (1996) 29 VKN 288 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Govind Trading Co.). Similar is the view expressed by division Bench of this Court, reported in [1995] 28 VKN 4 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dharamkishan Harbhajalal). 17.. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had the occasion to consider a similar situation. It has also held that cancellation of registration with retrospective effect shall not deprive the selling dealer of the benefits that are likely to accrue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
