TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arges. Purchase tax on the sale of gunny bags was also levied though those are exempted from tax. The contention of the petitioner was that since rice bran oil is edible oil there cannot be any levy of additional sales tax. 4.. An appeal was preferred against the order of assessment on the ground that the rejection of the prayer of exemption of delivery charges was totally illegal, and also that of additional sales tax on sale of rice bran oil which is of edible grade. Moreover, no reasonable opportunity was given by the assessing authority to produce declaration forms. The levy of tax on gunny bags was also illegal. 5.. The appellate authority, i.e., respondent No. 2 set aside the order of assessment with the direction to respondent No. 1 to make fresh assessment after considering the petitioner's claim. 6.. Against the order of the appellate authority an application was filed before this Tribunal which was registered as Case No. RN 79 of 1996 praying for a direction that respondent No. 2 should himself have decided the issue as to whether rice bran oil manufactured by the petitioner is edible oil or not. The rest portion of the order on other points was not the subject-m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued under section 57 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 12.. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the first appellate order of remand passed by respondent No. 2 on December 29, 1995 was challenged since the learned appellate authority did not decide the issue as to whether rice bran oil is taxable or not. So far as the direction for fresh assessment on other points was concerned that had not been challenged in revision. Hence, the assessing authority should have decided the other issues on the merits as per direction of the appellate authority, since the order of assessment was set aside. According to law such fresh assessment on all other points except levy of additional tax on rice bran oil should have been disposed of within four years from the date of order of remand passed by the appellate authority on December 29, 1995 but this was not done. The additional tax on rice bran oil had also been paid by the petitioner in the meantime. In such circumstances, the order of issuance of garnishee notice in respect of the dues arising out of assessment order being bad in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority is also to act in accordance with the first appellate order dated December 29, 1995. (2) If the garnishee notice issued under section 57 of the Act, 1994 is bad in law. 16.. At the very outset it may be noted that neither the appellate orders dated December 29, 1995 and July 25, 1996 nor the revisional order of the Board dated December 17, 1997 are the subject-matter of challenge. From the submissions of both the sides it has to be considered if the appellate order dated December 29, 1995 and July 25, 1996 shall have a joint effect on the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. It is therefore, necessary to examine the said two appellate orders. The learned Deputy Commissioner in his first appellate order, inter alia, held that the purchase of gunny bags once used are exempted from tax and this point was ignored by the assessing authority. Certain declaration forms were also not taken into consideration and further the rice bran oil according to him, is oil of edible grade. He, therefore, came to the conclusion as follows: "In the result, the petitioner succeeds partially and both the impugned orders of assessment are being set aside with the direction t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....findings on the taxability of rice bran oil. The learned Deputy Commissioner thus has created a great confusion by simply confirming the order dated June 21, 1995. His order dated July 25, 1996 in the tune of his previous findings made on December 29, 1995 should have been clear and transparent that is to say, he should have given clear direction to the assessing authority for deciding the undecided issues accepting that rice bran oil is not oil of edible grade as was decided by him subsequently. But it was not done, as such the question of interpretation of the results of two orders has cropped in. Since the subsequent order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the assessing authority was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, in our opinion, he should have agitated the matter in the revisional forum for proper modification of the order of the appellate authority confirming the order dated June 21, 1995 of the assessing authority. But though revision was preferred against the order dated July 25, 1996 before the Board, no such step was taken for modification of the said order by which the assessment order was confirmed. Since we are not considering the legali....