9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te sanction and no opportunity was afforded by the Sanctioning Authority to reopen the assessment, as such sanction was vitiated and is liable to be quashed. (ii). Whether the reassessment order u/s 21(2) of the Act dated 30.03.2002 is sustainable, since no notice was served on the applicant prior to completion of ex-parte reassessment and the same is sustainable for want of service of notice as the assessing authority could have assume jurisdiction by service of notice only u/s 21(2) of the Act. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in treating the consignment sale of Butter and Desi Ghee as interstate sale specially when the burden of section 6-A of Central sales Tax Act, was discharged by the applicant by producing evidence of dispatch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 24,36,078/- against From F No.392497 made to M/s M.K. Enterprises, Jaipur could not be allowed as exempted u/s 6-A of Central sales Tax Act, since Form-F was forged one as Rajashthan Party was not registered, as per Letter No.1120 dated 23.03.2001 of the Commercial Tax Officer, War-II, Jaipur. (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct to hold that the consignment sale of Desi Ghee amounting to Rs. 5,77812.62/- against From-F No.125598 made to M/s Ram Bhagat Agrawal and Sons, Jaipur could not be allowed as exempted u/s 6-A of Central Sales Tax Act, since Form-F was forged one as Rajashthan Party was not registered, as per Letter No.1120 dated 23.03.2001 of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ward-II, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the second appeal was preferred by the revisionist before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench-II, Ghaziabad. The Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad vide its impugned order dated 06.03.2007 has affirmed the order passed by the authority below and has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Commissioner and perused the orders passed by the authority below and the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not dispute that findings recorded by the authorities below as well as by the Tribunal are findings of fact and nothing could be shown to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
