15,677/l/3, on the ground that the dealer had number produced any declaration, as required under r. 27 2 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, as evidenced from the Check Sheet kept on record.
15,677/l/3, under s. 5 2 a ii .
15,677/1/3.
2,40,000/ for the quarter ending on 30 6 51 and Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 4, 1950, of the Orissa High Court in Special Jurisdiction Cases Nos.
The State of Orissa having obtained special leave from this Court, these appeals are number before us for disposal.
By two assessment orders passed under s. 12 2 of the Act, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack III circle, Jaipur, Orissa, determined the tax payable allowing the deduction of Rs.
The effect of this amendment was that revisions were treated as appeals to Sales Tax Tribunal, and it enabled the Government to file cross objec tions.
15,677/1/3 for the quarter ending on 30 9 51 from the respective gross turnover of the applicant.
While the revisions were pending, the legislature amended the Orissa Sales Tax Act, in 1957, by Orissa Sales Tax Amendment Act Orissa Act XX of 1957 .
The Tribunal stated a case to the High Court and one of the questions referred to was whether the assessing officer was number wrong in allowing deduction of Rs.
38 and 39 of 1958.
507 508 of 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1951, he claimed a deduction of Rs.
Similarly, for the quarter ending September 30.
Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant in both the appeals .
The State of Orissa, in pursuance of this amendment, filed memorandum of cross objections challenging the deduc tion of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SIKRI, J. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the the dealer, filed a return for the quarter ending June 30, 1951, under the Orirsa Sales Tax Act Orissa Act XIV of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Tribunal upheld this objection and directed that fresh assessments be made.
2,40,000/ under s. 5 2 a ii in respect of the goods sold to a registered dealer, named M s. Lal Co. Ltd., BA 1335.
2,40,000/ and Rs.
April 21, 1964.
He claimed a deduction of Rs.
2,40,000/ and Rs.
Sen and S. N. Mukherjee, for the respondents in both the appeals .
The dealer later filed revisions against the decision of the Assistant Collector.
The dealer filed appeals to the Assistant Collector, Sales Tax, challenging the assesment on grounds which are number relevant.
Certain other questions were raised before the Tribunal by the dealer, but as numberhing turns on them as far as these appeals are companycerned, they are number being mentioned.
