9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the case of assessee was covered under notification issued under Section 4 of U. P. Sales Tax Act, committed an error in not declaring the assessee non-taxable on the turnover of cotton labels, only, because in the case of assessee for earlier year it had been held liable to pay tax under Notification No. 333 dated 15.11.1971. 2. Circumstances in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax relying on the observation made in the case mentioned above held it to be cotton fabric. The Tribunal did not agree with the appellate authority and allowed the appeal of Commissioner of Sales Tax While setting aside the appellate order the Tribunal did not set aside the* finding that cotton labels manufactured by assessee was cotton fabric rather appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 333. It is well settled that each assessment year is an independant unit and the order passed in earlier years does not operate as res-judicata. Whatever had been held in assessment year 1972-73 did not preclude assessing authority from holding that cotton labels manufactured by assessee was cotton fabric and it was entitled to be declared as non-taxable. 3. It is also essential t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance was also placed on observation made by brother Rastogi, J. in the earlier decision of this very assessee. It is, however, not necessary to decide it as prima facie the Tribunal,, appears to have been inclined to have same view. The controvery shall be decided when the matter is taken up by Tribunal under Section 11 (8) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. 5. In the result this revision succeeds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
