9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, praying for an order directing the respondents to withdraw and rescind the order dated January 18, 2001 on the ground, inter alia, that the said order was not in accordance with law, since the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to contest the revisional application on payment of court fees in terms of the provision of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was not entertained with the findings that though the petitioner had the right to file revisional application and an opportunity of being heard, still since the cost of litigation according to the amended West Bengal Sales Tax Act was not paid, the application is liable to be rejected. Being aggrieved with the order of the respondent No. 1 the instant application is filed. 3.. At the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner submitted that the cost of litigation has to be paid as per the new provisions enacted when the application for revision has been filed after new enactment. 5.. Considered the submissions of both the sides. Perused the decision reported in Sivam Trading Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [2000] 119 STC 108 (TNTST) wherein it was observed in the said case by the honourable Members of the Tamil N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he opinion that the petitioner rightly paid court fees to the extent of Rs. 100 as per the provisions embodied in the previous Act, 1941. The order of rejection of the application passed on January 18, 2001 by Shri S.C. Majumder, President of the Appellate and Revisional Board was not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. It is, therefore, directed that the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
