Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C T O versus M/S MAN SINGHKA OIL PRODUCT LT

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C T O v M/S MAN SINGHKA OIL PRODUCT LT - STR Case No. 85 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 2090 (4 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

BENCH, JAIPUR

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER

Versus

M/S. MAN SINGHKA OIL PRODUCT LTD.

S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.85/2006

DATE OF ORDER : 04/10/2006

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Rastogi

Shri R.B. Mathur, for petitioner

BY THE COURT:

Instant revision petition has been filed against the order of Tax Board dated 15th December, 2003 whereby the order of the Assessing Authority levying tax on cement purchased at concessional rate has been set aside by the Dy. Commissioner [Appeals] and upheld by the Tax

Board in the appeal preferred by the Revenue.

The assessee was assessed u/s.10(3) of the

Rajasthan Sales Tax Act vide order dated 16th January, 1995 and after the assessment it was reopened u/s.12 of the Act and a demand was raised for a sum of

Rs.2,98,788/- after recording a finding the cement which was purchased at concessional rate was utilized for construction of building which has not been utilized for the purpose of installation of plant and machinery. The

Dy. Commissioner [Appeals] set aside the demand holding that the cement purchased at concessional rate was utilized for the purpose of installation of plant and machinery and no additional tax could have been levied upon the assessee. The appeal preferred by the Revenue against the said order before the Tax Board was dismissed vide order dated 15th December, 2003.

This fact remain undisputed even at the stage of

Assessing Authority that the cement purchased by the assessee at concessional rate was utilized for the purpose of construction of building where plant and machinery was to be installed and on the said premise the Dy. Commissioner [Appeals] and so also the Tax Board has recorded a finding that it was utilized for the purchase of plant and machinery and no additional tax could have been levied by the Assessing Authority on re- opening of the assessment.

I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Dy. Commissioner [Appeals] and so also the Tax Board under the order impugned. No question of law arises for consideration in the present revision petition.

Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. [Ajay Rastogi],J.

FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.