1996 (11) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of tyres and tubes of animal driven vehicles was taxable under the provisions of the Act remanding the matter to the assessing officer for determination of the quantum of turnover. 2.. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 3.. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1979-80 for which the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer on March 25, 1984 in which the turnover of the tyres and tubes was treated as exempt. Subsequently on the basis of some information that some turnover of the dealer might have escaped assessment, proceedings under section 21 of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer and after ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was sufficient and the appeal had to be decided on merits on all the points raised therein. The Tribunal has decided only one point on merit and that was about the revisability of the order dated September 29, 1984 by which the assessing officer had discharged the notice under section 21 of the Act. Relying upon a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Kundan Lal Srikisan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] 65 STC 62; 1987 UPTC 404, the Tribunal held that the order dated September 29, 1984 amounts to an order of assessment and therefore, that could be revised under section 10B. The honourable Supreme Court has held that once a notice under section 21 had been issued, the original order of assessment gets reopened and thereafter any or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed assessment would not be orders of the assessment so as to wipe out the earlier order of assessment. There was already an order of assessment dated March 25, 1984 and the order dated September 29, 1984 sought to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner did not vary the turnover already assessed. On the other hand there was specific finding that no turnover had escaped assessment and therefore the notice was discharged. The result was that the earlier order did not cease to exist. 8.. The Tribunals finding on this point is, therefore, reversed. Now it has to be seen whether there was any mistake in the order dated September 29, 1984 that was sought to be corrected by the impugned order passed under section 10B by the Deputy Commissioner. T....