9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in short, "the Act"). He is a hotelier. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The controversy is relating to the taxable turnover of Rs. 76,840. The assessee had a recalcitrant tenant, one Vaidyanatha Iyer, who was a dealer in automobile parts. *Special leave petition by the State against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2nd May, 1988 in S.L.P. (Civil) No, 14395 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority and in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the plea of the assessee that he is not a dealer in automobile parts and since the assessee could not keep the goods for a long time, he sold it for the price obtained by him. Aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated by the Appellate Tribunal. This is a clear legal error. We should say that the Appellate Tribunal abdicated its duty in not adjudicating the plea raised in the cross objections, that the assessee is not a dealer. 2.. Counsel for the assessee (revision petitioner) submitted that on the findings entered by the authorities below, it is self-evident that the assessee is not a dealer in automo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oubt that if Vaidyanatha Iyer had sold the entire goods, he would have got exemption under rule 9(g) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. It is not possible, on the basis of the materials now before us, to say that the petitioner (assessee) was a dealer or that he was doing the business in automobile parts, when he sold the entirety of the automobile parts, obtained from Vaidyanatha Iyer, to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
