2015 (8) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shampoo from outside the State of U.P. and sold the same within the State of U.P.. The assessing authority, while passing the assessment order, taxed the sale on shampoo @8%. Subsequently, the assessing officer was of the view that there was an error in the assessment order and consequently initiated proceedings for rectification of the mistake under Section 22 of the Act. The assessing authority, after considering the matter, issued an order holding that the shampoo imported by the petitioner was liable to be taxed as "cosmetics" @ 16% under Notification No.2595, dated 27.8.2001. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 8.4.2005 in which it was held that it was not a case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned counsel for the Department, submitted that there is no discussion in the assessment order indicating with clarity that shampoo was taxable under Notification No.101, dated 15.1.2000 and that reasons to believe indicated in the order of the competent authority was explicit for reopening the assessment proceeding on account of the wrong charging of the rate of tax. It was urged that since lower rate of tax was charged by the assessing authority, the same could be rectified in re-assessment proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that there was no error in the order reopening the assessment proceeding. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and, in order to proceed further, it would be essential to have a look at the two ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner, namely, that shampoo which the petitioner was importing could also be used for any other purpose other than washing hair. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition has categorically asserted that he was selling the shampoo, which was used for washing hairs. Such admission cannot be resiled by the petitioner at the stage of hearing of writ petition. In any case, we find that Entry No.48 of Notification No.101 of 2000, dated 15.1.2000 as notified in Hindi language is different. For facility, the Hindi version of the said notification extract is extracted as under: Kram Sankhya Mal Ka Vivran Kar Sthal Kar Ki Dar Pratishat 1 2 3 4 63 Kapra Dhone Ka Sabun Aur Dhulai Ki Prayojno Ke Liye Upyog M....