1996 (10) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rected against judgment dated September 29, 1994 in appeal No. 672/93/ST/Jaipur of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as, "the Board") accepting the appeal of the petitioner and setting aside the judgment dated July 12, 1993 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Jaipur in appeal No. 124/RST /JPA/DC-3 as well as the order dated May 18, 1992 of the present petitioner levying a registration fee of Rs. 50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 500 under section 16(1)(a), RST Act. 3.. Brief facts are that the non-petitioner and one other (referred to as the other partner) had a partnership-firm known as M/s. Prem Oil Industries duly registered under the RST Act ever since Februar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner were under section 12, RST Act and in the absence of a valid notice in the prescribed form the petitioner could not assume jurisdiction and the entire proceedings before him stood vitiated by this fatal infirmity. 8.. A perusal of the Board's order shows that the proceedings in this case before the petitioner was a veritable, to use the Board's words, "hotch-potch". The Board had the original records before it and found that: (i) it was undisputed that RC in the name of the firm was cancelled with effect from October 23, 1987 and was revived from October 21, 1987 in the name of the erstwhile partners; (ii) the mismatch between the dates was unexplained; (iii) the forms were ....