9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with him), for the appellants. Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A.K. Verma of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. and Vinod Dave, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY and YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.-The question raised in these cases is as to the validity of the notice served for reassessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed but on further reducing the quantum of suppressed sales. The second appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Upon a reference application made by the dealer the Tribunal drew a statement of the case with certain questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's judgment and referred to the Bombay High Court. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant and read as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and he was not proved to be an agent as defined under rule 2(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954. The High Court expressed the view that service of notice on the dealer or agent as required under section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with rules 2(1) and 47 of the Rules is a condition precedent to acquire jurisdiction by the authority for the purpose of reassessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear on behalf of a dealer or other person before any sales tax authority." The 1953 Act has been repealed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Section 35 of the 1959 Act provides for reassessment and giving an opportunity to the dealer. The provisions of section 35 are structurally different from the provisions of section 15(1) of the 1953 Act. Under the 1959 Act what is required is that the deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
