Skip to content


Tribunal Court December 1959 Judgments Home Cases Tribunal 1959 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.008 seconds)

Dec 22 1959 (TRI)

Cloth Trading Co. Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai

Reported in : 196011STC28Tribunal

1. In this case the only point taken by Mr. N.C. Mehta for the applicants is that the authorities below have erred in passing an order of assessment and also an order regarding penalty in the same order.His contention is that such an order was illegal and should be set aside. This point was not taken before the Sales Tax Officer, probably because the applicants did not know whether any penalty would be levied on them. On appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Officer it was contended that an officer acting under the Act cannot pass two such orders in the same order. The penalty has been levied under Section 39-A of the Act of 1953. This argument was rejected by the Assistant Collector. In revision it was again contended before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax that the order was bad in law as it had been passed under two separate sections. The Additional Collector noted that the applicants were unable to cite any authority in support of this view and he held it was permissible ...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1959 (TRI)

Natwarlal Chandulal Shah Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai

Reported in : 196011STC23Tribunal

1. This is an application for revision against the order of the Additional Collector of Sales Tax dated 21st February, 1959.2. The applicant received a notice in Form XLI from the Sales Tax Officer demanding a sum of Rs. 2,348 being the tax and the penalty due on assessment for the period from 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, of the business called Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. Against this order an appeal was filed with the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Appeals), Range II, Ahmedabad, who dismissed the same. The Additional, Collector of Sales Tax who heard the revision application against the said dismissal order also confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.The facts of the case are as under:- 3. One Maganlal Talakshi was carrying on a business in the name of R.Maganlal & Co. The business was of selling bidis and Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. had the sole agency to sell bidis manufactured by Messrs Thakur Savendekar & Co. The firm of Messrs R. Maganlal & Co. ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //