1991 (2) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed before the Commissioner for adjudication of a question of law as to whether the preparation of odomos manufactured by the petitioner was a drug or medicine or a pharmaceutical preparation. If it was one of these then the rate would be 5 per cent and if not the rate would be 7 per cent. By order dated November 6, 1985, the Commissioner held that odomos could be subjected to tax only at the ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....88 was ordered to be substituted by the following words: "There is no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a pharmaceutical preparation." The petitioner had filed an application under section 45(1) before the Tribunal on June 2, 1988. It also filed a special leave petition under article 136 to the Supreme Court. This special leave petition was dismisse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... effect from the date of the original order of assessment or it would be reckoned from [the date when the order of assessment was rectified](1). The Supreme Court held, after referring to its earlier decisions, that limitation has to be counted with effect from the date on which the [rectification order](2) was passed. In our opinion, the aforesaid principles would be attracted to the present c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed rectifying the mistake. It is only thereafter that an application under section 45(1) could 1. "the date when the order of reassessment was passed."-Ed. 2. "reassessment order".-Ed. be filed. In our opinion, therefore, the period of limitation should have been counted with effect from May 13, 1988. If this is so then it is not in dispute that the application was within time. As the peti....