9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee for the assessment year 2000-01. The said authority made additions in gross turnover and disallowed claim for certain deductions. Additional demand of Rs. 52,24,941 on account of tax, apart from penalty was raised. The petitioner-assessee preferred separate appeals under the State Act and the Central Act before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (for short, the DETC ) who vide order dated May 19, 2003 directed the petitioner-assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs under the State Act and Rs. 25,000 under the Central Act on or before June 16, 2003 as pre-condition for entertaining the appeals. Aggrieved against these orders, the petitioner-assessee preferred appeals to the Sales Tax Tribunal. During the pendency of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by the Tribunal, partially accepting the appeals of the petitioners, since according to the petitioners certain issues, remained undealt, an application for rectification was filed, which was allowed by the Tribunal on July 27, 2004. Thereafter, the State moved rectification application in the month of July, 2004, seeking rectification of order dated September 1, 2003 followed by second application dated October 19, 2004 and third application dated January 31, 2005. On March 9, 2005 the application dated June 21, 2004 for rectification of the order was withdrawn by the State. The rectification application filed by the State was finally heard by the Tribunal on April 6, 2005. While rejecting the contentions of the petitioner to the effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limited. The State even did not raise any objection when the petitioner's rectification application was considered and accepted on July 27, 2004. Still the counsel fairly stated that in case the State is aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal on September 1, 2003, he would have no objection if the order dated September 1, 2003 as well as the order dated April 20, 2005 impugned in the present petition are set aside and the matter is referred back to the Tribunal for re-hearing on merits Learned counsel for the State, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal in rectification proceedings, submitted that there was an error apparent on the face of record which was corrected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal could not have he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
