TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jumdar, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Panda, Advocate For the Opposite Party ; Mr. Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel ORDER 1. These two revision petitions by the Assessee-M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) are for two assessment years (AY) i.e., 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively. 2. These revision petitions have come before this Court pursuant to an order dated 26th July 1993 of the Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into TREV Nos.148 and 149 of 2001. 4. Relevant to both these years, an additional issue that has arisen concerning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen an assessment in terms of Rule 10 of the CST (O) Rules. This question was perhaps not in the purview of the issues that arose when the aforementioned reference was made by the Tribunal because the law in this regard was clarif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r furnishing false particulars". 5. It is only thereafter that an amendment was made by insertion of Sub-Section (3) to Section 6 (A) of the CST Act with effect from 8th May 2010, giving the AO the power of reassessment. 6. In the years with which the present Petitioner is concerned with i.e., 1986-87 and 1987-88, there was no power of reassessment with the AO and, therefore, the reassessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew expressed in Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India (supra) and concluded in paragraph 113 and 114 as under: "113. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the observations made by this Court in Ashok Leyland (supra) to the effect that an order passed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6A can be subject matter of reopening of a proceeding under Section 16 of the State Act was not correct. 114....