LAWS(ST)-1996-2-1

SUBH LAXMI AGENCIES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES

Decided On February 27, 1996
Subh Laxmi Agencies Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 86(1), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, the "old Act") (sic) read with Section 7, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (now Rajasthan Tax Board) (in short, "Tax Board") dated August 22, 1995 by which it has dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), maintaining the reassessment order passed under Section 12 of the old Act in respect of the assessment year 1986 -87.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. The petitioner sells medicines, drugs, pharmaceutical products and sanitary napkins. Regular assessment order relating to the assessment year 1986 -87 was passed under Section 10(3) of the old Act on June 3, 1988, taxing sanitary napkins at the residuary rate of 8 per cent. Notice under Section 17 of the Act was issued in respect of the said assessment year for revising the rate from 8 per cent to 10 per cent in respect of sanitary napkins on the basis of the decision given in Bhilai Traders v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1985) 12 STL 244 (M.P. Tribunal), holding that sanitary napkins is a toiletry article. The assessee filed reply to the notice but no order was passed. Thereafter, the assessing authority issued notice under Section 12 of the old Act for reopening the case. Assessee filed reply also taking objection of limitation under Section 12(2) of the old Act also. The assessing authority and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the objection regarding limitation. The Tax Board did not deal with this objection.

(3.) IN reply, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it was apparent from the order of the Tax Board that the objection of limitation was not pressed before it, notice issued earlier saved the limitation and the authorities have not committed any error in passing/confirming the reassessment order.