TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (3) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 vide assessment orders dated October 21, 1991, July 15, 1992, December 8, 1993 and January 16, 1995, annexures P-2 to P-5. Surgical cotton manufactured by the petitioner was assessed to sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent by the assessing authority vide orders noticed above, by treating the cotton and the surgical cotton as one item keeping in view the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 230 of 1976-77 decided on March 8, 1983. 2.. This Court, however, in State of Haryana v. National Scientific Industries, decided on February 7, 1996 and now reported as [1996] 103 STC 455 held that surgical cotton is different from the ordinar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al cotton at the rate of 4 per cent keeping in view the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal and there being no illegality in the orders of assessment, the revisional jurisdiction could not be invoked and thus the notice issued for revising the assessment orders is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy raised in this case is not res integra and has been completely answered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Free Wheels (India) Ltd. [1997] 107 STC 332. 5.. Mr. Manchanda, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for the State of Haryana could not bring to our notice any material which may show that the controversy raised in this petition is not covered by the decision of a division Bench of this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indicated in the notice itself. Judged from this angle, the learned counsel contends if the notice that was issued on November 17, 1997 is examined, it cannot be said that there was either any inherent lack of jurisdiction or that the condition-precedent had not been satisfied, and therefore, the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the notice that was issued. Mr. Dholakia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the High Court was fully justified, even at this stage, to quash the notice in question inasmuch as the authorities merely wanted to re-assess the assessee for which appropriate provision is there under the statute, and therefore, the revisional power could not have bee....