2008 (7) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proper course would have been to initiate the proceeding under section 21 of the Act, instead. The dealer-opposite party is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of silica sand. For the assessment year in question, its disclosed turnover was accepted and the Central sales tax was determined at Rs. 8,53,205.30. The assessing officer, while framing the assessment order, found that all the above sales were covered by form C and, therefore, it levied tax at the concessional rate of four per cent. Subsequently, on verification of form C it was found that there is no form C in respect of Rs. 7,871.70. Another fact which was found is that form C No. 72714 for the amount of Rs. 42,378.96 is defective inasmuch as no amount has been mentio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of record despite the fact that is quite apparent from the records available that the amount of Rs. 5,250.66 was not covered by form C and the exemption was wrongly allowed in the assessment order?" The Tribunal, as noticed above, has allowed the appeal on a short ground that on the facts of the present case, the proceeding should have been initiated for reassessment under section 21 of the Act. Reliance has been placed by it on its earlier decisions in this regard. The said view taken by the Tribunal is not legally sound. A conjoint reading of sections 21 and 22 of the Act shows that they operate in different fields. In some cases there may be overlapping but that does not mean that if the proceeding can be initiated under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....record and no long drawn argument is required. The order of the assessing authority rectifying its mistake on this score is, therefore, perfectly justified. The authority rectifying its mistake on this score is, therefore, perfectly justified. Another mistake which was sought to be rectified by the assessing authority was that in C form No. 72714, the amount is not mentioned. Therefore, according to it, the said form is invalid. An explanation was submitted by the dealer-opposite party in this regard. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party before this court submits that figure was mentioned in a separate sheet of paper which was annexed with the form. No adverse comment on the said explanation has been made....