9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are against the order passed in appeals by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal. This common order shall dispose of both the above revisions relating to the same dealer and arising out of a common order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in two special appeals under section 14(4A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The dealer is the same and these two matters relate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage of revision decided by a single Member of the Tribunal. However, in the special appeals filed before a Division Bench of the Tribunal contrary view has been taken in favour of the dealer. Hence these revisions by the Revenue. There is no controversy that the real point for decision is whether the contract between the dealer and the customer was a single and indivisible contract embracing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal held that the contract was one and indivisible, i.e., of the former category, while the Division Bench of the Tribunal has held it to be of the latter category. The question is whether there is any ground for interference in this revision. Learned counsel for the dealer contended that the finding is one of fact based on appreciation of evidence with which no interference can be made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred on both paper and printing were shown together. The effect of these entries made by the dealer in his register was considered by the assessing authority before reaching the conclusion that the contract was a single contract which was indivisible. The finding of the assessing authority was affirmed up to the stage of hearing of the matter by a single Bench of the Tribunal. It is only the Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
