9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, against the order dated March 1, 1995 passed in S.T.A. No. 206 of 1987 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed in KST/ SMR/36-86-87 dated December 18, 1988, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore. 2.. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of dry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 21(4) of the K.S.T. Act to revise the assessment order stating that the assessment order is improper, illegal and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, as the exemption is wrongly granted to the petitioner. A notice was issued and a reply was filed by the petitioner in response to the notice and thereafter, the revisional authority made out a case for action under section 21(2) of the Act s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have paid the tax. As the petitioner has not purchased and sold directly and only acting as a commission agent in between the vendor and the purchaser of M/s. Bawa Fishmeal Oil Co., it cannot be said that the discharge of duties and transfer of goods from the purchaser as a commission agent will not amount to sale. The revisional authority and the appellate authority erred in coming to the concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner to the company is dated February 17, 1982. Since that date, he has not taken any action to clarify the mistake. The show cause notice was issued on September 5, 1986 and thereafter, the letter dated October 27, 1986 came into existence taking a stand that the assessee is a commission agent. Thus the present letter dated October 27, 1986 is only an after thought, after the notice is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
