TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as 'the Act', for the assessment year 1981-82. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The impugned notice for reassessment had been issued to assess inter alia, the turnover of purchases to the extent of ₹ 3,57,895/- said to have been purchased by the petitioner from Regional Food Controller, Moradabad. The thrust of the argument on behalf of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to be the first purchaser of such foodgrains liable to assessment under Section 3-D of the Act. Further, the petitioner had failed to discharge its burden of being the first purchaser by furnishing the declaration in the prescribed Form III-C. The petitioner cannot escape the assessment in respect of the disputed turnover on the plea that the Regional Food Controller may have paid the tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has been called upon to show cause why reassessment order be not passed against it in view of the stand disclosed by the respondent in their counter affidavit. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without entering into the merits of the case, leaving it open to the petitioner to appear before the assessing authority and to contest the impugned notice under Section 21 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
