9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act ), challenging the order of the Tribunal, under which the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the assessing authority have been confirmed. 2.. With consent, taken for final hearing and heard. It is submitted for the petitioner-assessee that the Tribunal as well as other authorities under the Act committed an error in holding the petitioner as manufacturer and, even oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dealers. On inspection of its premises, on September 6, 1994, it was issued with a notice and then proceeded to pass order imposing tax on the turnover of purchase of firewood by it during the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. So, that was challenged unsuccessfully even before the Tribunal ultimately. Hence the present revision petitions. 4.. For the petitioner, it is contended that petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, including the Tribunal, have correctly held that the manufacturer is a class of dealer by itself as distinguished from dealers specifically referred to in the said provision and as such the petitioner cannot say that it is not a manufacturer . 5.. Further, what was assessed was the turnover on the purchase of firewood made by the petitioner locally during three years. Admittedly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id provision of law and purchase of firewood by the petitioner within the State of Karnataka during the relevant years exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, though it was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. So far as purchase made outside the State is concerned, it refers dealers specifically mentioned therein and not a manufacturer . In view of the above, said provision of law was not of any help to the petitioner. What ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
