TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was assessed to tax for the year 1992-93 under the Central Sales Tax Act on a net turnover of Rs. 26,20,711 by the assessment order dated September 6, 1995. The impugned order which was passed on October 20, 1999 purports to be a revised assessment order made as a sequel to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 413 of 1996 arising out of APGST assessment for the year 1992-93. The disputed turnover in T.A. No. 413 of 1996 was Rs. 11,76,29,000 which is made up of two items: (1) premium received by the petitioner on surrender of REP licences to State Bank of India; (2) Amount received from MMTC on account of sale of licences ( exim-scrips ) effected by MMTC-Rs. 2,88,70,000. As far as first item is concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Tribunal has been misquoted and misread. We have already adverted to the operative portion of the order in T.A. No. 413 of 1996. The directions given in T.A. No. 412 of 1996 pertaining to the earlier order of assessment for the year 1991-92 under the A.P.G.S.T. Act were assumed to be the observations made in T.A. No. 413 of 1996 (relating to assessment year 1992-93, A.P.G.S.T.). As already stated, out of Rs. 11,76,29,000 subjected to tax under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, the Tribunal in fact upheld the assessment on a turnover of Rs. 8,87,59,000 and in regard to the balance turnover of Rs. 2,88,70,000, the matter was remanded to ascertain whether the sale in question was effected by MMTC or the petitioner. It is surprising that even in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reply to the show cause notice furnished by the petitioner was an equal match to the first respondent s attitude. It confused one order for the other and raised an objection not strictly relevant to the issue. In the reply dated September 20, 1999, the petitioner quoted the order passed in T.A. No. 412 of 1996 and submitted as follows: That the remand directions in respect of the said assessment was for checking up of the quantum of sale outside the State and the quantum of the monetary payment received from MMTC by the appellant and then to exempt both. 4.. As already noted, the direction given in T.A. No. 413 of 1996 was quite different. 5.. A survey of the facts narrated above could reveal that the first respondent has compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
