TMI Blog1973 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging the assessment in so far as it related to a turnover of Rs. 2,38,472, which it claimed to be sales in the course of import and hence not taxable under the said Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner heard the appeal on 1st August, 1966, and 16th August, 1966. By that time the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla Co. (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Tribunal questioning the assessment on the said turnover of Rs. 30,00,000, which was not the subject-matter before the appellate authority, but was challenged for the first time before the Tribunal. After the appeal was numbered by the Tribunal, the assessee filed an application to raise some additional grounds and it was allowed. When the appeal came up for hearing before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal if he objects to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31(3). In this case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in its entirety. Therefore, the assessee could not have any objection to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as such. It may be that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly turnover which the assessee disputed before the appellate authority, as already stated, was Rs. 2,38,472 and the claim for exemption in relation to that turnover was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The fact that the assessee contemplated to file additional grounds of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in relation to the said sum of Rs. 30,00,000 and odd but did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the appeal as not maintainable. Against the same order of the Tribunal, which is now before us, the assessee filed Writ Petition No. 427 of 1970, reported as Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer[1970] 26 S.T.C. 486. and a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, considered the order of the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal exercised its jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
