1985 (1) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fly stated, relating to the disposal of this reference may be stated as under: Assessing authority (A.C.T.O., Beawar) determined the tax liability of the respondent M/s. Poonam Chand Uttamchand of Beawar. The assessee went in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer, against the order of the assessing authority which was allowed. Against this order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer, the State of Rajasthan moved an application under section 14(1) before the Board of Revenue for revising the said order. A single member bench of the Board of Revenue upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer, and rejected the revision petition by his order dated 18th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....statement of case by order dated 20th May, 1977, referring the abovenoted question for the opinion of this Honourable Court. To complete the narration of facts it will be necessary to mention here that the memo of special appeal filed before the Revenue Board was signed by the assessing authority (Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward B, Beawar) and the said appeal was accompanied by an affidavit of the assessing authority wherein it has been mentioned that the assessing authority had contacted the Government Advocate, Shri D. R. Sharma, and he after studying the case gave him the draft for the special appeal and thereafter special appeal was filed by Shri Dalu Ram Sharma on 17th May, 1973. Before we proceed to discuss the question of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s under: "At some earlier hearing a preliminary objection was raised that the application was not properly presented as it was not accompanied by a vakalatnama in favour of the Government Advocate authorising him to present the application. In consequence of this preliminary objection the Government Advocate filed a vakalatnama and prayed that non-submission of vakalatnama was a mere curable irregularity and should be condoned. After hearing the counsel for the parties we waive the irregularity and treat the presentation of the application as a valid one." Learned counsel for the department has drawn our attention to C.T.O., Special Circle I v. Sanghi Oxygen Co. 1974 RRD 93 wherein the Board of Revenue relying on Shiv Narain v. Deputy....