TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Eshita Barua, U.N. Goyal and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by SWATANTER KUMAR J. Leave granted. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the matters are heard for final disposal. By this judgment we will dispose of all the aforenoticed appeals as a common question of law on somewhat similar facts arises for consideration of this court in all these appeals. However, for the purpose of brevity and to avoid repetition of facts, we would be referring to the facts of S.L.P. (C) No. 11103 of 2009. All these aforenoticed appeals, though refer to different respondents, all being timber merchants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid appeal was allowed. The appellate authority found that the "ballies" come under the category of "goods " and not under the category of "building goods". Thus, the differential tax levied by the Tax Assessment Officer, assuming "ballies" to be "timber" was not justified. Consequently, the entire demand itself was set aside. The order of the appellate authority dated October 18, 2006 was challenged by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward III, Circle B, Kota, before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer which vide its judgment dated June 11, 2007 found that the "ballies" are not "timber" and upheld the view taken by the first appellate authority and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Department. Aggrieved by the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revision petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits." The present appeals had been preferred by the Department against the order dated July 7, 2008 passed by the High Court. The primary challenge, to the legality and correctness of the order, is that there is no discussion either on the facts or on the questions of law raised in the revision petition before the High Court and in the argument addressed during the time of hearing of the revision petition. With some regret, we are constrained to notice that the cryptic orders like the above, have not only been passed in the present appeals, but identical orders had even been passed by the High Court in a large number of cases from which the appeals have been preferred before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
