Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the advance tax notices issued under section 33(3) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 should be interfered with, and whether the assessing officer should first determine the petitioner's tax liability on the commodity in question on the basis of the returns filed under section 26 of the Act.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the petitioner's assertion that coke manufactured from coal was not taxable, while the Revenue maintained that the commodity was exigible to tax and that advance tax could therefore be demanded. The Court declined to decide the taxability question itself because it required factual inquiry at the assessment stage. Instead, it directed the assessing officer to make the assessment on the strength of the returns filed by the petitioner and, while doing so, to examine the liability to tax, the applicable rate, and the quantum payable in accordance with law and the relevant legislative changes.
Conclusion: The matter was left to be determined by the assessing officer in assessment proceedings, and the impugned notices were not finally adjudicated on merits.