9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Central. Since Sales Tax Revision No. 727 of 1991 was not listed for hearing before the court today, the applicant Prem Chand Netaji who is the sole proprietor and is appearing in person has made a request to get the said revision also and be heard and decided today to which the learned Standing Counsel has no objection. The file of Sales Tax Revision No. 727 of 1991 has been summoned from the office and is being heard and decided along with the Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 728 of 1991 to 732 of 1991. 2.. All these six revisions have been filed by Prem Chand Suresh Chand, Arhati, Jahangirabad, district Bulandshahr, against a common order dated March 26, 1991 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad Bench-I, Moradabad, in Second Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the assessment year 1983-84, U.P. and Central and assessment year 1984-85, U.P. and Central have not been served upon the applicant within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), however, did not accept the plea of limitation but remanded the matter to the assessing authority to make fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the applicant preferred second appeals under section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed all the appeals. 4.. It may be mentioned here that the present revisions have been filed on behalf of the applicant by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, Advocate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that the honourable Supreme Court vide order dated August 19, 1992 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4234-40 of 1992 had while disposing of the appeal directed the applicant to file appeals within four weeks which was to be decided after condoning the delay in the filing of the appeals. The applicant submitted that in view of the orders of the honourable Supreme Court referred to above the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was to decide the appeal himself and not to remand the matter. 6.. Before deciding the preliminary objection raised by the applicant it is necessary to reproduce the various orders passed by the honourable Supreme Court in full: "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5917-18/94 (f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I ARHATI .... Petitioner. Versus COMMR., SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW .... Respondent. (With application for stay and exam. from filing English translation). Date 27-3-1995 This/these petition was/were called on for hearing today. CORAM: Honourable Mr. Justice J.S. Verma Honourable Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha. For the petitioner (so-in-person). Upon hearing counsel the court made the following: ORDER Special leave petitions are dismissed. Sd/Sd/- (Vimal Jaitley) (Vinod Kumar) Court Master Court Master." 8.. The aforesaid two orders have been reproduced verbatim from annexure Nos. 4 and 5 filed along with Application No. 73042 of 2000 filed in S.T.R. No. 727 of 1991 which is duly supported by the affidavit of Prem Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appeals pending before the Tribunal and the revisions pending in the High Court may also be disposed of as expeditiously as possible since a large number of years are involved and huge amount of tax has been demanded from the appellant. These appeals are disposed of as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- (S. Ranganathan) Sd/- (V. Ramaswami) Sd/- (B.P. Jeevan Reddy)". New Delhi, August 19, 1992. At present there is no order staying the proceedings in these revisions. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the applicant is rejected. 10.. So far as the merit is concerned, the applicant submitted that for the assessment year 1982-83 the notice under section 21 of the Act was not served up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
