9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated April 28, 1998 (annexure D), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, in revision filed by the petitioner being Revision No. 155/Indore/2/97/State which in turn confirms the order dated March 17, 1997 (annexure C) passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirement of rule 20-C of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. It is this question namely, whether petitioner is entitled to claim set-off as per section 8(1)(a) which was being probed in the assessment cases and reached to appellate/ revisional fora at the instance of the assessee (petitioner). Eventually it was decided against the petitioner by holding that the petitioner was not ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awyer for the respondents. 6.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned order. 7.. In my view, looking to the nature of controversy involved in the case namely--whether petitioner is entitled to claim the set-off, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way indulging in filing false return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made out.
8.. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated April 28, 1998 (annexure D) passed by the Additional Commissioner (respondent No. 1) is set aside. As a consequence, the original order dated March 17, 1997, passed by the assessing officer (annexure C) is also quashed being consequential in nature.
Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
