9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red this case by framing the following questions of law for its opinion: "(i) Whether the revisional authority's first order disallowing the sales to registered dealers; revising the order of Assessing Authority dated April 5, 1971, i.e., after 13½ years, is valid in law on account of undue delay in passing the order, even if no period of limitation has been prescribed in Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce the purchasing dealers for cross-examination of the assessee? (v) Whether this sales tax registration of purchasing dealers alleged by the Department having been cancelled was required to be notified in the gazette and whether in absence of the same, the cancellation order has come into force disentitling the selling dealers to claim deductions for sales made to them? (vi) Whether the regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 5, 1971, vide order dated July 11, 1984. Mr. K. L. Goyal, learned senior advocate, submits that the assessment order was passed on April 5, 1971, whereas the revisional authority has reopened the matter and has decided the same vide order dated July 11, 1984, i.e., after an inordinate delay of 13½ years. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter after an inordinate delay. In the present case, as there has been inordinate delay of more than 13 years, hence, the matter could not have been reopened by the revisional authority. In view of the above, we do not deem it necessary to go into the other questions referred to by the Tribunal. Resultantly, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
