A SAIDA BEEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a dealer in jewellery. By a proceeding dated August 25, 1995 the tax liability for the period 1995 -96 was allowed to be compounded. By exhibit P3 proceedings the first respondent on the ground of rectification of the mistake refixed to the compounded tax at Rs. 63,488. The compounded rate for the subsequent periods were also refixed and on revision the said orders were confirmed for those periods. The original petition is against these orders.

(2.) ONE of the main submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no need to pass revised orders, exhibits P3 and P4, since as per the Notification S.R.O. No. 402 of 1994 in G.O. (P) No. 47/94/TD/TX dated March 30, 1994 the exclusion of the purchase turnover of old gold is in order. The dealers in gold and silver who have opted for composition with regard to their turnover are exempted relating to the purchase of old ornaments. From the impugned orders it could be seen that the rectification is by way of inclusion of purchase turnover of all gold ornaments which is clearly excluded as per the exemption notification. Therefore, the objection of the petitioner is to be sustained. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The original petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 23250 of 1998 in O.P. No. 13276 of 1998E dismissed. Petition allowed.