TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue, dismissing the special appeal against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1978, of a Single Bench in a revision against the order dated 28th April, 1971 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur. The material facts are stated hereafter. The assessee claimed deduction of certain sales from a taxable turnover, made to registered dealers, against S.T. 17 forms. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the selling dealer was also liable for payment of tax. This contention was rejected. Accordingly, the sales tax charged from the assessee, amounting to Rs. 1,448.50, on sales amounting to Rs. 72,424.51 was set aside. The department filed a revision against that order. So the Board of Revenue which was first heard by a Single Bench of the Board which rejected the revision upholding the reason as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument advanced was that notwithstanding such a payment by the purchasing registered dealer, the liability for payment of tax, according to the notification, by the assessee survives in addition. In other words, payment of tax for the same sale transaction by the purchasing registered dealer was never in controversy before the appellate authority or the Tribunal and the only question was of the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
