Thereafter a Revision was taken to the High Court.
Before the Tribunal, two companytentions were urged on behalf of the assessee viz That the sales in question took place in Rajasthan and as such numbersales tax companyld be levied under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and That the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was incompetent to enhance the tax levied by the Sales Tax Officer, as numbersuch power had been companyferred on him under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the companyclusion that all the five transactions were inter state sales.
Aggrieved by that decision the assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the tax levied on those three transactions on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce the required C certificates and therefore, he was liable to pay sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at 7 on the turnover in respect of those sales.
During the assessment foe the assessment year 1960 61 the assessee claimed that five out of the transactions effected by it were intra state sales.
As against that decision the assessee went up in appeal to the Tribunal.
Before the High Court the two companytentions that were advanced before the Tribunal, were reiterated.
But he rejected the companytention of the assessee that it was entitled to the exemption claimed by it.
The Tribunal rejected both those companytentions.
The Sales Tax Officer came to the companyclusion that two out of these five transactions were inter state sales and the remaining three were intrastate sales.
S. Hegde, J. In this appeal by certificate, the only question of law arising for decision is whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had powers to enhance the tax levied on the assessee respondent by the Sales Tax Officer.
The brief facts of this case are The respondent assessee is a registered dealer.
