Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1960 (11) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es Tax Validation Ordinance, which was followed up by the Sales Tax Validation Act, VII of 1956. Under that enactment the ban imposed by Article 286 on the levy of tax on inter-State sales was lifted so that what were called "explanation sales" could be taxed if the appropriate State Legislature provided for that. The Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore, purporting to exercise the revisional powers vested in him by section 12 of the Act, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 24th December, 1955, should not be revised, and why the turnover of Rs. 7,87,671-2-0, which had been exempted from tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, should not be subjected to the levy of sales tax at the appropriat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aped turnover-it is now rule 17(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules-was also explained by the Full Bench. At page 328, it was pointed out: ".......... in cases where the entire turnover of an assessee is before the assessing authority and is considered by it and such authority by error of fact or law treats the turnover or any part thereof as not assessable or grants a deduction or exemption to which the assessee is not entitled under the Act, the case is not one of escaped turnover but of an improper or illegal assessment order which is revisable under rule 14(2)." Revisional jurisdiction in the present case was exercised under section 12(2) of the Act, but the principle remains the same. The Tribunal was thus in error in treating it a....