9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a registered dealer under the sales tax law of the State. Originally, the Assessing Officer, the CTO, Bhowanipur Charge, rejected the disclosed figure of sales of the petitioner and completed the assessment on June 28, 2004 raising a demand of Rs. 3,61,63,909 though the petitioner claimed the entire disclosed sale as export sales. The above referred assessment order was set aside on appeal by an order dated October 31, 2005 of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kolkata (South) Circle. Thereafter, the reassessment was done on October 5, 2006 by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner's taxable turnover was assessed at nil, taxable specified purchase price at Rs. 35,00,000 and interest for non-payment of purchase tax at Rs. 55,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ster yarn locally and thereafter, the petitioner followed the process of degumming to receive the end-product which was synthetic textile fabrics. The petitioner, it is claimed, sold the end-products to M/s. Nu-Lite Business Machines (P) Ltd., a dealer located in Falta Export Processing Zone, a 100 per cent export oriented unit. The learned Advocate has claimed that the entire sales was deemed export of Schedule I goods. It is further argued that the assessing authority after examination of all documents at the time of reassessment accepted the claim of the petitioner and hence, there is no ground on which the assessing officer might have exercised the power of review under section 83 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The authority co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 922 was applicable to the case of the respondent-firm was not free from doubt and it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the provisions of the Act in a rectification proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly it was observed that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. The honourable High Court of Calcutta also in the case of Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1994] 205 ITR 469 observed that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
