9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dealer has been made on November 16, 2006 incorporating the provisional assessment order dated July 30, 2004. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order aforesaid as passed by the Tax Board dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as infructuous. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly pointed out that this court has already taken the view that the appeal against a matter arising out of provisional assessment is rendered infructuous after passing of final assessment order and has pointed out the decision of this court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes v. Mahaveer Timber Mart [2009] 24 VST 409 (Raj); [2007] 211 CTR 90, but then, learned counsel submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the Act of 1994), even the orders passed by the appellate authority while dealing with the appeals from the provisional assessment orders would be subject to final assessment under section 10 of the Act of 1954 (section 29 of the Act of 1994). This court very specifically held that, 'There is no question of assessing authority defying or flouting the orders of the superior officers while making assessment under section 10 of the Act. The situation is akin to a suit for permanent injunction in which a temporary injunction is passed. Even if the temporary injunction is confirmed in appeal by a higher court, the trial court is not precluded from dismissing the suit and refusing to grant permanent injunction'. 21.. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess despite the fact that there is an order that the appropriate order will be passed in regular assessment proceedings in accordance with the order which may be passed in provisional assessment. In view of the reasons mentioned above, this argument of learned counsel for the Revenue deserves to be rejected on the ground that the law cannot be interpreted because of the reason of hardship which may be caused to the authority by any order which was contrary to law. In the cases of Shreechand [1996] 100 STC 53 (Raj) and P.G. Fiiles Ltd. [2000] 120 STC 203 (Raj) as well as Division Bench judgment in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal [2001] 124 STC 298 (Raj); 25 Tax World 81, almost similar situations were ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
