1997 (12) TMI 606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....commission agent. Petitioner is a duly registered dealer under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"). 3.. This petition relates to the assessment of petitioner's firm to sales tax under the Act, for the period commencing from November 6, 1972 to October 25, 1973. 4.. Petitioner claimed benefit of deduction under section 2(r)(iv) of the Act, in respect of the sales made against declaration submitted by him in form No. XII. The said sales were made to one M/s. N.A. Trading Company. Submission of declaration forms in form No. XII contemplates, with regard to tax-paid goods made by one registered dealer to another registered dealer. Petitioner also claimed deduction with regard to sales amounting to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es were effected by the petitioner for which benefit is being sought by the petitioner. It has also been held by the appellate authority that the registration of M/s. N.A. Trading Company has been cancelled retrospectively. 8.. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner, preferred further revision under section 39(1) of the Act before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. The revisional authority has also concurred with the appellate authority and the assessing authority. Consequently and in the result, petitioner's revision has also been dismissed. 9.. Petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the same. 10.. Respondents have filed their reply in oppugnation. They have contended that after recording of f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an enquiry with regard to genuineness of the firm and other details and only, thereafter, a necessary certificate is granted.   The judgment of this High Court has been passed after the order by the revisional authority had been passed. Therefore, this judgment could not be brought to the notice of the revisional authority. 16.. Following this judgment, division Bench has passed another order, which is reported in (1996) 29 VKN 288 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Govind Trading Co.). Similar is the view expressed by division Bench of this Court, reported in [1995] 28 VKN 4 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dharamkishan Harbhajalal). 17.. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had the occasion to consider a similar situation. It has also he....