9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness mainly in coconut oil. For the assessment year 1986-87 the petitioner filed annual return in form No. 8 for the purpose of assessment before the first respondent showing the total turnover as Rs. 2,35,28,132.42 and taxable turnover as Rs. 1,77,14,254.60. Subsequently the petitioner filed revised return in form No. 8 declaring a total turnover of Rs. 8,12,29,129.77 and Rs. 1,84,58,136.50 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also place reliance on the rulings of the apex Court reported as State of Madras v. Jayaraj Nadar Sons [1971] 28 STC 700 and Vishnu Traders v. Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal [1990] 77 STC 10 (Raj). 3.. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would draw attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit that has been filed on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot interfere and set aside the impugned orders. 4.. As narrated above the petitioner first submitted a return in form No. 8 declaring the total taxable turnover. Thereafter petitioner again filed another revised return in form No. 8 suo motu long before the commencement of the assessment proceedings. Petitioner has also explained as to how the mistake crept in while filing the first return in fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
