1989 (2) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessment year 1979-80, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor, treated "semia" as different goods than that of "maida" and levied tax thereon. He treated "semia" as "general goods". The assessment order is dated 9th July, 1980. The assessee-dealer did not file an appeal against the said assessment. Sometime in 1983, he invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, basing o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of the case and following the decision of this Court aforesaid allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the assessing authority with the following direction: "The assessing authority will issue notice to the assessee and after hearing the objections of the assessee will decide the question whether the 'semia' sold by the assessee was manufactured out of 'maida' purchased from resident d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal appeals. But the office took an objection and confined it to Tribunal Appeal No. 122 of 1984 only. We do not know whether another Tax Revision Case is preferred by the State against the Tribunal Appeal No. 124 of 1984. This order therefore will be confined to the assessment year 1979-80 only. The learned Government Pleader contended that the Deputy Commissioner was within his power in refus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two years has been condoned in an indirect manner. While we see quite some force in the contention of the Government Pleader, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be just to allow the tax revision case on the said point. We think that it would meet the ends of justice and law if we direct that the assessing authority shall keep in mind the rule ....