TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (12) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the value of Rs. 4,07,651-6-3 were transferred to the head office in Calcutta and the branch office at Nipani, and Rs. 3,94,229-1-3 represented the price of sales made in the course of inter-State trade. The Commissioner of Sales Tax thought that this order of the Sales Tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He therefore issued a notice to the petitioner in Form No. XXV on 11th April, 1958, for revising under section 22-B of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the order dated 7th June, 1956. The petitioner's objection to the validity of the notice and other objections to the revision of the order dated 7th June, 1956, were rejected by the Commissioner, who on 6th June, 1958, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment proceedings till the disposal of the reference when it was brought to his notice that the reference was pending in this Court. The petitioner also complains that as all along he remained under the bona fide impression that the assessment proceedings would not be resumed until after the reference was answered by this Court he could not produce before the Sales Tax Officer the material he intended to for showing that no sales tax was payable by him. The prayer of the applicant is that the order of assessment dated 25th June, 1963, passed by the Sales Tax Officer be quashed. 4.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that this application must be dismissed. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. It cannot therefore be contended that the assessment order made by him on 25th June, 1963, was without jurisdiction. 5.. At the same time, we must observe that in the present case, though the Sales Tax Officer was not legally bound to stay the assessment proceedings till the disposal of the reference pending in this Court, both judicial propriety and decorum required that he should have awaited the decision of this Court on the reference. The Tribunal has not yet stated the case, though required to do so as far back as 20th March, 1962. The fact that a reference was pending in this Court was brought to the notice of the Sales Tax Officer by the petitioner. In these circumstances the ugly haste with which the Sales Tax Officer resumed as....