9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said ground before any of the appellate authorities. There is also nothing on record to show that the assessment is perverse or illegal. Since the revisionist has not raised the said ground, which is factual in nature, before any of the appellate courts, hence, he cannot dispute the same at this stage. Rectification of mistake - HELD THAT:- The learned Standing Counsel admits that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed under Section 9(4) of the Entry Tax whereby an entry tax of ₹ 44040/- is imposed upon the revisionist. Trade Tax Revision No.109 of 2013 is filed with regard to entry tax of ₹ 19040 imposed upon the revisionist with regard to purchase of cement. Since, both the taxes are imposed on the same facts and circumstances and with regard to the same constructions raised by the revisionis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on which the present revisions were entertained is no more survives in view of the law already settled and, he thus, does not press the same. However, he raises two submissions before the Court. 5. The first submission is that the amount assessed by the assessing authority with regard to different articles is wrong and is incorrect. The said assessment is arbitrary, without any basis and fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,000/- of brick is shown and while imposing the tax at 5%, wrongly a demand of ₹ 4,78,250 is raised which comes to 50% of the assessed amount. In view thereof, the said imposition of tax is incorrect. 8. Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel admits that there appears to be a calculation mistake and the said demand requires to be corrected. 9. Thus, both the revision are disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
