9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant and Shri M.K. Agarwal, the learned counsel, representing the assessee-opposite party. This revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called "the Act", is directed against the judgment and order of the U.P. Sales Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur (D.B.), dated January 11, 1989. By means of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has declared the assesseeo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel representing the assessee-opposite party, has fairly conceded, that the assessee had, in fact, admitted his tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 25,584.80; that he had deposited the requisite tax thereon; and, further, that in respect of purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,06,263.20, no form III-C(2), entitling the assessee to claim exemption under rule 12-B of the Rules was produced either befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over of Rs. 25,584.80. This is fatal and the impugned judgment, therefore, must perish. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated January 11, 1989 is set aside. Let a copy of this decision be transmitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the quantum of tax payable by the assessee-opposite party under the Act in conformity wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
