TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vendra Kumar for the respondent. JUDGMENT This sales tax revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Department assailing the order dated July 19, 2007, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short, "the Tax Board"), allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee and reversing the order dated May 16, 2005 passed by the petitioner-assessing officer. At the outset, counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T.) Commercial Taxes reported in [2008] 13 VST 443 (Raj); 20 Tax Up-Date 1, exactly on the same notification has upheld the claim of those assessees and has accordingly held liable for the benefits as per the Incentive Scheme of 1987. Counsel for the petitioner-Department submits that the Additional Commissioner found the respondent-assessee not acting in accordance with the benefits conferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itself has been retrospectively amended by the subsequent notification dated April 11, 2007 and it has been issued by the State Government in the public interest conferring benefits to similarly situated assessees, then the Tax Board, even otherwise, has come to the correct conclusion. This court also in the case of Agarwal Salt Company [2008] 13 VST 443 (Raj); 20 Tax Up-Date 1 and Tripura Cement ....