1986 (1) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a recognition certificate for the year in question for purchase of raw material for the manufacture of vanaspati. In the recognition certificate the details of the goods to be purchased by the dealer were given and it was issued forms III-B for purchasing those commodities through those forms. In the recognition certificate mustard oil was added on May 23, 1973, but before that date the mustard oil did not find place in the said certificate. However, admittedly even before May 23, 1973, the respondent-assessee purchased mustard oil worth Rs. 15,94,174 through forms III-B. According to the department since the assessee misused forms III-B issued to it, it became liable to pay penalty under section 15-A(1)(1) of the Act. The assessing aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst the appellate decision of the Assistant Commissioner the assessee and the Commissioner appealed to the Tribunal-the assessee claiming acceptance of the accounts and the returned taxable turnover and the Commissioner challenging the reduction of the estimated taxable turnover from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 65,000. Assessee's appeal was dismissed by order dated June 11, 1982, by the Tribunal and the decision of the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed. The appeal by the Commissioner was partly allowed on September 13, 1982 and the estimated taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 90,000. Assessee allowed the Tribunal's decision against it to become final but challenge was laid against the decision of the Tribunal in the connected appeal by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard by the Tribunal and counsel for both parties fairly agreed that it should be done". The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and remanded both the appeals to the Tribunal for deciding them together. Here in the instant case Mr. R.K. Gulati, learned counsel for the respondentassessee, is not in a position, in absence of instructions, to make a statement that the revision of the assessee may be reheard. He has not disputed the proposition of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Vijai Int. Udyog [1985] 59 STC 49 but urged that in view of the facts of the case it would not be proper to direct the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the department on merit. He submitted that the power of the Supr....