9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducted at source a sum of Rs. 2,19,597 towards sales tax from out of the bills payable by them to the petitioner. Similarly, for the assessment year 1996-97 the contractees have deducted at source an amount of Rs. 1,81,221 towards sales tax from out of the bills payable by them to the petitioner. The assessing authority passed the assessment orders dated January 8, 1998 and March 30, 1998 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively and levied tax of Rs. 1,97,915 and Rs. 87,670 respectively. According to the petitioner-dealer, the Commercial Tax Department itself has to refund an amount of Rs. 1,25,233 to the petitioner towards the excess sales tax collected from the petitioner. It appears that on an earlier occasion, a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 of the APGST Act, actually, the respondent has pre-determined the merits of the matter and therefore it tantamounts to adjudication of the dispute and a final order made under section 20 of the Act. Secondly, the learned counsel would contend that under no circumstance the respondentrevising authority can amend or revise the earlier show cause notice dated July 28, 2000 because such a power is not granted to him under the provisions of the APGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder. 5.. At this stage, we do not find any necessity to express our opinion on the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to state that if in the opinion of the petitionerdealer, impugned revised show cause notice dated July 23, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued the impugned revised show cause notice. The respondent has not yet made any order on merits after receipt of the objections from the petitioner to the earlier show cause notice. If that is the admitted position, it cannot be said that the respondent lacks jurisdiction or power to amend the show cause notice raising additional grounds for the proposed revision of the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96. The power to raise additional grounds for the proposed revision under section 20 of the APGST Act is an incidental power of the respondent under that section. Therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to us. In our considered opinion, the impugned action of the respondent i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
