9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Officer, Ward No. 40, New Delhi, questioning the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, dated October 8, 1992, in Appeal No. 53/SIT/92-93 relating to the case of the assessee (2nd respondent). By the order dated October 8, 1992 (annexure P2) the Tribunal modified the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax dated March 27, 1992. The order of the Assistant Commissioner dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority." Thus the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated March 27, 1992, reconfirmed his order dated February 6, 1992. Aggrieved by the said conditions imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, the dealer filed an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 53/SIT/92-93 and the said appeal was partly allowed by retaining the conditions imposed by the Assistant Commissioner but modifying the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner in a "petition" and was also bad. Counsel for the dealer (respondent No. 2) has made his submissions stating that the "petition" was treated as an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner. In our view, the Tribunal was right in holding that the "petition" filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner could be and was treated by the Assistant Commissioner as an appeal and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
