Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1956 (9) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 1955, September 30, 1955, December 31, 1955 and March 31, 1956, the Sales Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Bangalore, in assessing the assessee to pay sales tax granted exemption in respect of certain sales in coffee seed. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Division, purporting to act under section 15(1)(i) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948) commenced proceedings suo motu for revision of assessment of the assessee, and by order dated December 8, 1958, revised the assess- ment for the four quarters. This order was set aside by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the view that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority on December 8, 1958, to revise the order of the Sales Tax Officer purporting to act under section 15 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, the assessee sought to raise contentions, two out of which had originally been raised before it and had been rejected, and which were not pressed before the High Court in the revision petitions, and certain new contentions. The Tribunal apparently declined to allow those contentions to be raised and held that since the assessee was not a second dealer in coffee within the State he was not exempt from liability to pay sales tax. Against that order, revision applications were again filed to the High Court. Before the High Court, counsel for the assessee did not challenge the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question whether the assessee was a second dealer, but sought to re-argue questions which were either decided at the first hear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pealing Act, several Acts including the Mysore Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948) were repealed, but it was expressly enacted that the repeal shall not affect- (a) the previous operation of the said enactments or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or   (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said enactments; or   (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the said enactments; or   (d) any investigation, legal proceeding (including assessment proceeding) or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at account set aside the order. After the power of the Deputy Commissioner was restored, that officer again commenced proceeding for revising the assessment of the Sales Tax Officer and he passed the order which has given rise to these appeals. Before the Tribunal the assessee raised four contentions: (1) that the Deputy Commissioner was incompetent to exercise revisional powers a second time in respect of the same assessment order; (2) that the earlier order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner was final and the revisional proceedings commenced by the Deputy Commissioner thereafter were illegal;   (3) that the Deputy Commissioner did not give fresh findings on the basis of the materials on the record, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , and that it had not incurred any liability or obligation under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. It was also contended that section 40(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, was ultra vires and beyond the competence of the State Government, that the Deputy Commissioner erred in basing its order on the report of the Inspecting Officer which was extraneous to the record of assessment, that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity by the Deputy Commissioner to set up its case and that the procedure adopted by the Deputy Commissioner was opposed to law. The two contentions which were previously raised and rejected were, as already pointed out, not raised before the High Court and could not be again canvassed before the Tribunal aft .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates