9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A date March 31, 1997 is typed. The signature of the assessing officer does not contain any date thereunder. Yet, another date is shown as April 10, 1997 on the left hand side below the judgment but there is no signature therein above. In our view, only a disputed question of fact and no question of law arises in this case. The second date April 10, 1997 as shown below the judgment is not below the signature of the assessing officer. There is no date below the signature of the assessing officer. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and therefore, in our view, the first substantial question of law as framed does not arise. Also an attempt appears to have been made by the assessing officer to deprive the assessee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e signature of the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner with no date thereunder. On the left hand side yet another date was shown as April 10, 1997 without any signature. The assessing officer, after assessment on merits, came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was entitled to a refund of Rs. 79,00,000. On September 22, 1997 the revisional authority, being Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State issued a suo motu show cause notice calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the assessment order should not be revised. After hearing the respondent, ultimately by an order dated January 16, 1998 the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur allowed the revision. He observed that main issue involved was as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to be admitted by this court on June 30, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law: 1.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to change the facts regarding the date of passing assessment order from April 10, 1997 to March 31, 1997? 2.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in granting interest under section 43A of the BST Act, 1959 even when the said section was incorporated with effect from April 1, 1995 and was not operating during the assessment period 1993-94? We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The Advocate for the respondent fairly states that the applicant would not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessing officer to deprive the assessee of the benefit of a refund. He must have had knowledge of the fact that if his order was made after March 31, 1997, the effect would be to render the assessment order as one without jurisdiction since by virtue of operation of section 33(4A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act the nil return filed by the respondent would be deemed to be accepted. Prima facie, this appears to have been done to deprive the respondent from claiming the refund as assessed. This is a very serious matter and therefore, we direct the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State to conduct an enquiry into the matter and take steps to fix the responsibility and initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officer. He i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
