TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee deals in minera lores. The period of assessment relates to the second and third quarters of the year 1951, that is, quarters ending on 30th June, 1951, and 30th September, 1951. As required by the taxing authorities, the assessee submitted his returns on 25th July, 1951, and 15th November, 1951, for the aforesaid two quarters. In the return the assessee returned his gross turnover at Rs. 2,69,045-8-9 and Rs. 1,36,418-1-3. He, however, claimed deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) at Rs. 2,40,000 and Rs. 15,677-1-3 respectively on the ground that he sold the minerals to S. Lal and Company Ltd., another registered dealer in Orissa having registration certificate No. BA 1335. I may mention here that the assessee had also sold mine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the respective gross turnovers of the applicant; and (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in entertaining the cross-objection and giving relief under it?" 3.. The account books showing the gross turnover as have been filed by the assessee, Messrs M.A. Tullock and Co. Ltd., were accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities. It is also admitted that (sic) Mr. Acharya, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that the first question referred to this Court is covered by an earlier decision of this Court. In fact, both the questions referred to this Court for decision are concluded by two Division Bench decisions of this Court. To both these decisions I was a party. 4.. In the case of Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that case and Messrs S. Lal and Company were the purchasing dealers. Thus, the answer was that the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act will operate if the facts as mentioned in the said proviso are found to exist irrespective of whether the purchasing dealer gave a declaration under rule 27(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. In the instant case the assessee is the selling dealer and sold the goods to another registered dealer whose certificate showed that he intended to resell the goods in Orissa. Thus, he clearly comes under section 5(2)(a)(ii) and our earlier decision applies on all fours. Accordingly, the Ist question must be answered in the affirmative, that is, the assessing officer was not wrong in allowing ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as the State by section 23(3)(a)(b). Accordingly, by virtue of the transitory provisions as contained in section 11 of Act XX of 1957, all pending appeals and revisions came to be heard as second appeals by the Tribunal. The Tribunal gave notice of the appeal to the State and eventually the cross-objection in question was filed by the State. The identical point came up for consideration in Ramachandra Balaram v. Commissioner of Sales Tax Since reported at [1960] 11 S.T.C. 480., referred to above. The question referred to this Court in that case was: "Whether the cross-objection filed by the State in the present case is maintainable in law?" After discussing the entire position in law, the answer of this Court was given in the affirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
