1984 (1) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said year. Against the said order of the CTO, the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No. CST. AP 14/67-68 before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the DC), who by his order dated 20th March, 1968 (exhibit-B) allowed the said appeal and held that the petitioner was not liable to pay any Central sales tax for the said period and cancelled the assessment of the CTO. In allowing the said appeal, the DC was guided by the law declared by this Court in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty v. State of Mysore [1962] 13 STC 583; 40 Mys LJ 577 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the State on other grounds, since reported in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment year 1963-64 on the basis of which taxes can be recovered from him. 4.. In justification of his action, the respondent has filed his return. 5.. Sri B.P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that whatever be the effect of the Amending Act, there was no legal and effective assessment order made against his client for the assessment year 1963-64 under the Act and therefore, it was not open to the authorities to recover any amount for the aforesaid assessment year.   6.. Sri L.M. Pandurangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader, in justifying the action of the authority contends that the petitioner cannot escape the liability notwithstanding the order made by the Tribunal in his favour.   ....