9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust 22, 1995 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal No. 20 of 1992 along with Appeals Nos. 19 and 21 of 1992. 2.. The respondent was subjected to a provisional assessment in respect of sale of aluminium foils, which were sold by it by charging sales tax at 1 per cent. The assessing officer was of the view that it was taxable at 4 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. 4.. Thereafter, the assessing officer filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal which also came to be rejected vide judgment dated August 22, 1995. The Tribunal held that since the assessing officer has passed a regular assessment order in respect of the entire period and, therefore, the question of determining the validity of provisional assessment has become academic. 5.. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, there is no need to examine the validity of provisional assessment order dated December 19, 1990 passed by the assessing officer, which was set aside and which otherwise would have been subjected to regular assessment. The parties shall be governed by the outcome of regular assessment proceedings. 6.. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is hereb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
