Skip to content


Gauri Shanker Alias Munshi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Revision No. 133 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1983]54STC130(All)
AppellantGauri Shanker Alias Munshi
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Srivastava, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....year 1972-73.2. the assessee was aggrieved by an order of assessment. since the assessee had filed an appeal under section 9, he was required to make a deposit of 20 per cent of the assessed tax. he did not deposit the tax and made an application for waiver. various applications were made on which time to make the deposit was given. ultimately, an application was filed on which, according to the assessee, no order was made and the appeal was taken up on 29th february, 1979 and was rejected on account of the requisite deposit not being made.3. the assessee deposited a certain amount on 3rd may, 1979 and also filed a second appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not deposited 20 per cent of the tax which was required to.....
Judgment:

B.N. Sapru, J.

1. This revision has been filed by the assessee and pertains to the assessment year 1972-73.

2. The assessee was aggrieved by an order of assessment. Since the assessee had filed an appeal under Section 9, he was required to make a deposit of 20 per cent of the assessed tax. He did not deposit the tax and made an application for waiver. Various applications were made on which time to make the deposit was given. Ultimately, an application was filed on which, according to the assessee, no order was made and the appeal was taken up on 29th February, 1979 and was rejected on account of the requisite deposit not being made.

3. The assessee deposited a certain amount on 3rd May, 1979 and also filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not deposited 20 per cent of the tax which was required to be deposited. The Tribunal further held that the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was justified in rejecting the memorandum of appeal.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee has come in revision.

5. The learned counsel argues that when he made an application on 9th February, 1979, no order was made on it and as such the appeal could not have been dismissed on 20th February, 1979, without intimation to the assessee about the fate of the application. It is not a part of the duty of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) to intimate the orders made on the application of the assessee. It is the assessee's duty to find out whether he had or had not been granted time. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that 20 per cent of the tax assessed had not been deposited and consequently the Tribunal was also justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.


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