9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 968 of 1980, 654 of 1989 and 544 of 1990 and that the rubber products were liable to be taxed at 3 per cent. But, by exhibit P1, this was rejected and the products were taxed at 8 per cent. Against exhibit P1, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the third respondent. In exhibit P2 it was stated thus: 1. The assessment order in question was passed on November 30, 1990. Subsequent to this date, the Government of Kerala has issued G.O. (P) No. 6/91/TD dated January 15, 1991 (corresponding to S.R.O. No. 80 of 1991). As per the said G.O. the rate of tax on the sale of rubber products is reduced to 3 per cent with effect from September 1, 1988 to March 26, 1990. It is therefore submitted that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reduction in the rate of tax on the purchase turnover is not correct. It is against exhibit P4 notice that the original petition is filed. 2.. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. T. Karunakaran Nambiar submitted that the concessional rate under S.R.O. No. 80 of 1991 was not granted under the original assessment; but on appeal the assessment was set aside and it was held that the petitioner was entitled to the concessional rate. Accordingly exhibit P3 was issued as per the directions in exhibit P2. The power under section 19 of the Act cannot be exercised with regard to the matter which has been decided by the appellate authority. He further contended that in any event S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990 cannot be made applicable because it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature or whether it will amount to an amendment to the provisions contained under S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981. The notification states that which will come into effect only from April 1, 1989. The above provision itself is an answer to the contention of the Revenue that it is clarificatory in nature .................................. If that be so, the next question to be considered is whether retrospective effect can be given to the amendment in S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990 even with effect from April 1, 1989 as provided under the notification. Since we have already taken the view that the effect of the explanation in S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990 is taking away the benefit of concessional rate of tax in respect of rubber purchased for manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalaya [1993] 91 STC 76. There the question arose was whether the power under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 for re-opening the assessment could be resorted to in a case where there is an appeal against the assessment. In that case, assessments were made for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. In appeal the Assistant Commissioner nullified the assessments on the ground that condition precedent for initiation of proceeding under section 12(8) of the Act do not exist. In that case, A. Pasayat, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus: An assessment order merges with the appellate order by operation of the doctrine of merger. The appellate order would thereafter be the operative decision in law. The assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
