1997 (7) TMI 642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of law to this Court for its opinion: (a) Whether the revising authority in the absence of any material could reverse the finding of Assessing Authority that the cotton-seed oil sold by the assessee was edible? (b) Whether there was any legal evidence to scope the stand of the revisional authority that the cotton-seed oil sold by the petitioner was inedible? Is it not that the revisional authority has travelled beyond the record of the assessment file and violated the provisions of law under section 21 as interpreted by the honourable Tribunal, respondent No. 2, in the judgment reported in [1969] 24 STC 258 (P&H) [FB] [Hari Chand Rattan Chand & Co. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Additional)] and judgment in Milkhi Ram Oil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be processed as edible under the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977? (h) Whether the order of revisional authority and as affirmed by the honourable Tribunal is not vitiated on account of lack of proper opportunity to the petitioner/dealer before reopening the case? 2.. Briefly stated the facts are: Petitioner who is engaged in the business of resale of khal/oil, etc., is a registered dealer under the sales tax laws. Assessment for the year 1980-81 was framed on June 8, 1982. Inter-State sales of cotton-seed oil were taxed at the rate of 1 per cent against "C" forms. Revisional authority took action under section 9(2) of the Central Act read with section 21(1) of the State Act in the light of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd contention raised by the counsel for the petitionerdealer, the plea put forth by him is that against the judgment in Milkhi Ram's case [1992] 84 STC 206 (P&H), L.P. As. Nos. 88 and 89 of 1992 has been filed and operation of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court has been stayed and, therefore, the ratio in Milkhi Ram's case [1992] 84 STC 206 (P &H), would not be applicable. 5.. As the correctness of Milkhi Ram's case [1992] 84 STC 206 (P&H) is under challenge before the Letters Patent Bench, the question regarding rate of tax on the cotton-seed oil has not attained finality. A question of law, thus, would arise under the circumstances. 6.. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the followin....