Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Radhey Shyam Prashari. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number S.T.A. No. 700 of 1974
Reported in(1977)6CTR(All)129
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentM/S. Radhey Shyam Prashari.
Excerpt:
- .....- we have heard the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue and sri r. k. gulati for the opposite party.2. while dealing with a revision petition for the assessment year 1965-66, the judge (revision) sales tax, bareilly range, made a casual observation that the assessment proceedings in respect of the opposite party for the years 1964-65, and 1966-67, could not be justified. obviously this observation is an obiter inasmuch as it was not necessary for disposing of the revision for the assessment year 1965-66. the anxiety of the revenue is that this obiter may influence the mind of the assessing authority in making the assessment of the opposite party for the years 1964-65 and 1966-67. it is for this reason that revenue has sought for a reference to this court.3. sri gulati did.....
Judgment:

Chandrashekhar, J. - We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri R. K. Gulati for the opposite party.

2. While dealing with a revision petition for the assessment year 1965-66, the Judge (Revision) Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, made a casual observation that the assessment proceedings in respect of the opposite party for the years 1964-65, and 1966-67, could not be justified. Obviously this observation is an obiter inasmuch as it was not necessary for disposing of the revision for the assessment year 1965-66. The anxiety of the Revenue is that this obiter may influence the mind of the assessing authority in making the assessment of the opposite party for the years 1964-65 and 1966-67. it is for this reason that Revenue has sought for a reference to this court.

3. Sri Gulati did not dispute that the aforesaid observation which is an obiter, should not influence the mind of the assessing authority in making the assessments on the opposite party for the years 1964-65 and 1966-67.

4. Hence it would be sufficient to make this position clear. It would not be necessary to direct the Judge (Revision)to refer the question of law sought for by the Revenue and to answer that question merely for the purpose of such clarification.

5. With these observation we dismiss this application.

6. In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs.


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