9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit Kumar Mathur For the Respondent : Anjay Kothari KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI J.-This revision petition filed by Revenue is directed against the judgment dated June 11, 2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 1169 of 1998/Bhilwara, whereby the learned Tax Board dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order dated May 19, 1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, wherein they have prayed for imposing the tax at the rate of three per cent instead of four per cent as shown by the assessee in the bills. The assessing authority passed an order dated July 11, 1994 for forfeiture of the amount of tax to the extent of one per cent shown to be deposited by the non-petitioner assessee consequent upon the sale of cotton made to M/s. Mewar Textile Mills, Bhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals), Ajmer, to refund the excess tax deposited by the assessee cannot be said to be legal and the same is required to be set aside. He further contended that the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide order dated June 11, 2002 erred in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner assessee vehemently defended the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of excess tax deposited by a registered dealer. It only provides for levying penalty upon those registered dealers who realize the excess tax. The assessing authority in this case did not think it proper to levy any penalty, on the contrary, he forfeited the amount of excess tax refunded by the non-petitioner assessee under section 16(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
