1987 (1) TMI 479

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal was justified in holding that reassessment of the dealer under section 19(1) was not legal as second appeal decided did not take into account the issue on which reassessment under section 19(1) is made?" 2.. The non-applicant dealer deals in cotton bales and was assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the Diwali years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 out of which these four references arise. In the original assessment, packing material consisting of hessian and iron hoops were assessed to tax on the theory of implied sales. Sale of iron hoops was assessed at 2 per cent for the period prior to 1st April, 1966 and 3 per cent thereafter as declared goods under entry "Iron and Steel", entry No. 5 of Part I of Sch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n holding legal as the order passed in earlier second appeal had become final regarding assessment of tax on packing material and the matter cannot be reopened under section 19(1). The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 has held as under: "There can be no doubt that, if an appeal is provided against an order passed by a Tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative decision in law. If the appellate authority modifies or reverses the decision of the Tribunal, it is obvious that it is the appellate decision that is effective and can be enforced. In law, the position would be just the same even if the appellate decision merely confirms the decision of the Tribunal. A....