9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to Rs. 78,369 under section 2(r)(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 purchased from M/s. Gagan Supari Centre, Indore, a registered dealer under the said Act whose registration was cancelled with effect from June 26, 1981? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in substantially departing from its earlier decisions on the identical point without referring the case to the President of the Board of Revenue for constituting a Division Bench of the Tribunal for its opinion as laid down in the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue under section 9 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959?" 2.. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant carries on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the firm had never been in existence and was entirely bogus and thus, upheld the order of lower authority. The Appeal No. 237/PBR/85 was, however, allowed in part with remand of the matter for other purposes on January 29, 1987 (annexure C). Aggrieved, the applicant filed an application under section 44(1) of the Act (annexure D). That application, registered as No. 32-III/87, was however, rejected on November 17, 1987 (annexure E). The applicant has, therefore, filed this application under section 44(2) of the Act. 3.. We have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pancholia for the applicant and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the Revenue. 4.. Shri Chaphekar submitted that the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered, the registration number was shown against the name of each dealer and they had given the requisite declaration, the question whether, in the event of the purchasing dealers being found to be bogus and fictitious persons, the assessee would lose the benefit of the deductions claimed by him is not one of fact but one of law." 9. The facts are similar. 10.. The counsel also submitted that in Appeal No. 41/PBR/85 and in Appeal No. 83/PBR/85 respectively decided on June 17, 1986 and April 30, 1986, the Tribunal in regard to the same firm, held that the purchases were made from the registered dealer and as such, the deduction of sales of such tax-paid goods was permissible. The Tribunal decided the case on January 29, 1987, i.e., after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
