TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trade Tax Tribunal's Decision Set Aside for Exceeding Jurisdiction in Inter-State Sales Assessment</h1> <h3>Allen Roller Flour Mills Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP.</h3> Allen Roller Flour Mills Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP. - [1999] 115 STC 588 (All) Issues:Challenge to Trade Tax Tribunal's order on assessment of inter-State sales amounting to Rs. 3,33,110, Jurisdiction of Tribunal to set aside entire assessment and reopen matter relating to turnover of Rs. 5,65,34,586.84.Analysis:The revisionist challenged the Trade Tax Tribunal's order regarding the assessment of inter-State sales amounting to Rs. 3,33,110 for the assessment year 1989-90. The revisionist, a manufacturer of atta, maida, and suji, had disclosed sales through commission agents, with a discrepancy in declarations and sale notes. The assessing officer treated the difference of Rs. 3,33,110 as inter-State sales, which was contested in the first appeal and subsequently in the second appeal. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer had not conducted a thorough investigation into the matter and ordered a remand for a fresh assessment after completing the necessary investigation.The dealer contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the entire assessment and reopening the matter related to the turnover of Rs. 5,65,34,586.84, as the appeals were restricted to the sum of Rs. 3,33,110 only. Citing relevant case laws, the dealer argued that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to the specific amount in dispute and could not order a re-investigation into the entire turnover amount.The Standing Counsel, relying on the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10, failed to provide any authority supporting the Tribunal's action. The court referred to previous judgments that clarified the limitations of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, stating that it cannot order enhancements when the matter was not in dispute before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and was set aside.In conclusion, the revision petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal afresh, ensuring compliance with the law and the limitations of its jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 