TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtue of the notification having retrospective effect - Held that:- The ground of 11 years pendency alone in prosecuting this revision petition renders it non- deserving for consideration - Revenue to prosecute further - the Board has allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee partly on the ground that the interest could not be made chargeable in case of the retrospective levy of tax, as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 18.07.2002 passed by the Member, Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) in appeal No.1055/1998/Kota. 2. The brief facts as emerging from the impugned order are that the respondent was the registered contractor, who was awarded several works contracts during the assessment years 1987-1988 1988-1989. Out of the said contracts, some were for deployment of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to Rs.44,025/- under Section 11B(1)(f) of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner Taxes, Kota, which appeal was dismissed by the said authority vide the order dated 3.3.1998. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had preferred the second appeal before the Tax Board, which appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the respondent-assessee was liable to pay the interest on the amount of tax, when the liability to pay tax was quantified. He also submitted that the Board had misinterpreted the notification as well as the provisions contained under the said Act. Mr. Mathur has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1994] 94 STC 422, in support of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to point out any judgment of this Court or of the Apex Court laying down the legal position contrary to the decision of the Board. Though he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), it may be noted that the said case did not deal with the issue as to whether the assessee would be liable to pay the interest under Section 11B(1)(f) of the said Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
