TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....July 13, 1999 the instant writ petition has been filed. 2.. A perusal of the pleadings contained in the writ petition, and a consideration of arguments advanced by Mr. J. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would go to show that four grievances, in the main, have been projected by the writ petitioner as against the assessment order made by the primary authority as upheld by the revisional authority. Firstly it has been contended that the benefit of tax already deducted at source has been granted by the lower authorities only on the basis of treasury challans showing deposit of tax deducted at source into the Government Treasury and while considering the entitlement of the writ petitioner-assessee on the said account, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificate which is issued in form 14 would contain the details of the deposit made into the Government treasury of the tax deducted at source. The provision contained in the Rules requiring one copy of the challan to be transmitted to the assessing authority for completion of the assessment proceeding is a procedural provision and in view of the substantive provisions contained in section 27 of the Act of 1993, an assessee would be entitled to adjustment of taxes deducted at source upon production of the statutorily prescribed tax deduction certificate. The controversy on this count however, has become significant in view of the clear and categorical statement contained in the counter-affidavit of the State to the effect that as and when t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he instant case, the petitioner claims exclusion of a part of its turnover on the ground that such turnover pertains to goods, which have been brought into the State by way of inter-State sales. If the contentions of the writ petitioner are correct and it is able to substantiate the same by valid documents, it would certainly be entitled to exclusion of such part of its turnover. In the instant case, the authority appears to have negatived the said claim on the ground that the same is not authorised by the expressed provisions of section 8(3)(iv) of the Act of 1993. Clearly, the authority appears to have committed an error in reaching the aforesaid finding. Similarly, if the goods procured within the State have already suffered taxation un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority to reopen the said question. 6.. The last contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the assessment made without adhering to rule 14(1)(b) would not be a valid assessment. This Court finds that the aforesaid projection made by the writ petitioner as regards the validity of the assessment order has been made for the first time in the present writ petition. The aforesaid projection not having been made before the primary authority and the order of assessment made by the said primary authority not having been challenged in the revision proceedings on the said basis, this Court sees no good ground to permit the writ petitioner-assessee to reopen the assessment made on the basis of the aforesaid question now raised. 7....