9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consideration of the same in the original order dated 1.3.1995 passed in revision as also in the review judgment dated 7.9.1999 stating that the case laws reported in [1996 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] were discussed in detail and the applicability of the ratios decided in these cases and came to the conclusion that the case laws cited do not help the petitioner and accordingly it was of the firm view that the Tribunal did not overlook the mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act and has rightly opined that if M/s. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. had paid any tax treating its transaction as inter-State transaction it can seek redressal in proper forum according to law. - A review by its very nature has a limited scope and it is not that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t review application, there was no remedy available with the Tribunal and only a reference under Section 48 then available to the appellant under the Bihar Finance Act could have been preferred, which was not done. 5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the State did not press the aforesaid preliminary objection but it was submitted by him that the substantial question of law raised on behalf of the appellant on the basis of which the appeal has been admitted for hearing does not at all arise in the present matter and the present appeal does not involve such question. 6. It is the stand of learned counsel for the State that the appeal has not been filed against the original order in revision passed by the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the order dated 3.6.2005, we find that the question of mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act raised on behalf of the appellant has been considered in detail with reference to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal as also the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also noted the consideration of the same in the original order dated 1.3.1995 passed in revision as also in the review judgment dated 7.9.1999 stating that the case laws reported in (1988) 3 SCC 58 and (1996) 9 SCC 499 were discussed in detail and the applicability of the ratios decided in these cases and came to the conclusion that the case laws cited do not help the petitioner and accordingly it was of the firm view that the Tribunal did not overlook the mand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
