TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 read with section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (now Rajasthan Tax Board), Ajmer dated May 26, 1995 by which it has dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur dated January 3, 1992. By this order, the tax imposed at 9 per cent on the inter-State sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the honourable Supreme Court given in State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547. 4.. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitionerdealer that the first appellate authority set aside the tax by his order dated January 30, 1992, it was confirmed by the Rajasthan Tax Board and as such the non-petitioner should not be saddled with liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relying upon State of Rajasthan v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products [1996] 101 STC 547 (SC), similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in R.T.T. Nos. 185 and 186 of 1995 (R.T.T., Jaipur), Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-I, Jaipur v. Kothari Wire Industries decided on October 28, 1996. 6.. The main question for consideration is the date from which the nonpetitioner-dealer should be held lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal or revision. Section 11B(2) ran as under: Where any amount of tax, fee, interest or penalty is demanded from a dealer as a result of an order passed in any proceedings under this Act (including assessment, appeal, revision, rectification or otherwise) and such tax, interest or penalty, is not paid by such dealer within the time required by or under the provisions of this Act, he shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
