2010 (2) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OHUNTA J.-The Tribunal has referred this case by framing the following questions of law for its opinion: "(i) Whether the revisional authority's first order disallowing the sales to registered dealers; revising the order of Assessing Authority dated April 5, 1971, i.e., after 13½ years, is valid in law on account of undue delay in passing the order, even if no period of limitation ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... original order of Tribunal to produce the purchasing dealers for cross-examination of the assessee? (v) Whether this sales tax registration of purchasing dealers alleged by the Department having been cancelled was required to be notified in the gazette and whether in absence of the same, the cancellation order has come into force disentitling the selling dealers to claim deductions for sales m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment done vide order dated April 5, 1971, vide order dated July 11, 1984. Mr. K. L. Goyal, learned senior advocate, submits that the assessment order was passed on April 5, 1971, whereas the revisional authority has reopened the matter and has decided the same vide order dated July 11, 1984, i.e., after an inordinate delay of 13½ years. Counsel for the petitioner has placed relia....