The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax.
In exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 15 1 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessments and remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh disposal.
His net turnover was determined at Rs.
and after referring to Section 15 of the Act and Rule 33 of the Rules, it was held that the revisional authority companyld number have interfered after the expiry of a period of three years since the dispute related to escaped turnover.
After giving the assessee adequate opportunity for producing the relevant documents and accounts which he failed to do for one reason or the other the assessing authority made fresh assessments by which the turnover of the assessee in respect of the auction sales was included in the taxable turnover and the exemption under the licence was disallowed.
2,39,925 was similarly exempted.
One of the companytentions raised before him was that the turnover which had previously been exempted and later included was escaped turnover and therefore the assessments were barred by limitation under Rule 33.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeals repelling all the companytentions raised before him.
For the second year, i.e., 1956 57 the turnover of Rs.
200 and Rs.
The High Court referred to its previous judgment in K. Sarvothama Srinivasa Shenoy Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode 1965 K.L.J. 438.,
The assessment years with which we are companycerned in these appeals are 1955 56 and 1956 57.
The assessee filed further appeals before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
He was also companyducting auction sales of cardamom having taken out a licence under Section 9 of the Act.
The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax on examining the assessment record suo motu was of the opinion that granting of exemption under the licence was number proper, legal or regular because the assessee had number proved that the transactions were on behalf of known principals.
The assessment for the year 1955 56 was companypleted by the Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax Officer on September 5, 1956.
These appeals also failed.
11,448 14 9 representing the sales of provisions.
The assessee then filed tax revisions before the High Court.
In granting these exemptions the assessee was given the benefit of the companymission licence taken out by him for which he had paid a fee of Rs.
In Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Quilon v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co , this Court examined the same question which arises for decision in the present appeals.
400 respectively for the two years in question.
K.E. Nainan, the respondent, was a dealer in provisions at Kallar.
