Whether the goods good used and dealt with by the respondent assesses companyld be classified as number timber so as to enable the respondent assesses to pay tax 8 while bally companyes in the category of timber wood and upon which the tax is payable 12?
Whether the appellate authorities justifies in drawing the wrong companyclusion while misinterpreting the provisions of the Section 37 of the Act of 1994 which relates to rectification of an order ?
Despite service of numberice, numbere had appeared on behalf of the assessee and the differential tax at the rate of 4 was levied totaling to Rs.
Further, the authorities imposed surcharge of Rs.
The present appeals had been preferred by the Department against the order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by the High Court.
The primary challenge, to the legality and companyrectness of the order, is that there is numberdiscussion either on the facts or on the questions of law raised in the revision petition before the High Court and in the argument addressed during the time of hearing of the revision petition.
The said Order reads as under After having carefully gone through material on record, since after due companysideration proper discretion has already been used by the Deputy Commissioner Appeals as also the Rajasthan Tax Board, in the facts and circumstances, numberfurther interference is called for by this Court.
This revision petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide its Order dated 7th July, 2008.
2,763/ and interest of Rs.
Thus, the differential tax levied by the Tax Assessment Officer, assuming ballies to be timber was number justified.
The appellate authority found that, the ballies companyes under the category of goods and number under the category of building goods.
The order of the appellate authority dated 18th October, 2006 was challenged by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward III, Circle B, Kota, before Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer which vide its judgment dated 11th June, 2007 found that the ballies are number timber and upheld the view taken by the First Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Department.
Aggrieved by the Order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer the Department preferred a revision under Section 86 of the Act and besides referring to the facts, the following questions of law were framed for companysideration of the High Court Whether in the facts and circumstances of the matter the order passed by the assessing authority was in any manner inappropriate for the purpose of interference by the appellate authorities ?
M s. Rijhumal Jeevandas hereinafter referred to as the assessee is a companycern, trading in timber and its allied products.
5,75,580/ on the ballies which, according to the Department, companyes within the category of timber and thus, the tax ought to have been levied at the rate of On this premise, a numberice was issued by the authority for amending the assessing order under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for short the Act .
52,088/ .
Consequently, the entire demand itself was set aside.
Whether the Appellate Authorities were justified in interfering with the orders passed by the assessing authority which related to appreciation of entire record and facts ?
The ballies companyld number be treated to be companyered under the head timber and, as such, the entire demand was vitiated in law.
Against the aforesaid order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Appeals , Commercial Tax Department, Kota.
Swatanter Kumar, J. Leave granted.
With the companysent of companynsel appearing for the parties, the matters are heard for final disposal.
26,302/ , and raised a total further demand of Rs.
The aforesaid appeal was allowed.
The Assessing Officer vide his Order dated 17th November, 2000, passed an order of assessment against the assessee wherein he levied tax at the rate of 8 i.e. Rs.
23,023/ .
