9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the common questions of law and fact they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3.. For the sake of convenience we take up for consideration the application No. 44 of 1996 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95. It has been alleged that the applicant-firm carries on its business of refining kalmi shora at Hanumangarh. It refines this kalmi shora into a substance called salt peter and thereafter sells it off. One of its partners by name Shri Kamal Prakash Biyani obtained from the Mining Department a mining licence on February 28, 1985 for extracting from the mine the Kalmi Shora for its being refined as salt peter. This mining lease, though in the name of the partner Shri Kamal Prakash Biyani, is being operated by the applicant- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant on February 1, 1996 made a provisional assessment order, thereby creating a huge demand of Rs. 9,95,505 including penalty of Rs. 6,01,506. In the case of application No. 45 of 1996 for the assessment year 1995-96 the amount so demanded is Rs. 1,66,671 including the penalty of Rs. 1,06,847. Demand notices were issued. In the counter filed on behalf of the non-applicant it has been admitted that Shri Kamal Prakash Biyani is a partner of the applicant-firm. The position taken up is that since Shri Biyani holds the licence in his name it shall be considered that the mining operations are being done by him in his individual capacity and the Kalmi Shora extracted from the mine is sold by him to the applicant-firm. Hence purchase tax is payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxes, Rajasthan], wherein this Tribunal on December 19, 1997* came to the conclusion that in a case where the question of interpretation of a notification or circular is involved and there is a difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation between the regular assessing authority and the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) it could not be said to be a case of evasion or avoidance of tax. In that case the question of interpretation of the notification dated March 23, 1989 was involved. The regular assessments were completed. The Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) took a view different from the one taken by the regular assessing authority. It was held that such a case does not fall into the category of evasion of tax or con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
