ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Vs. JYOTI COTTON INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel.

(2.) Both the revision petitions are directed against the concurrent findings of two appellate authorities below in favour of assessee that the goods namely Mustard Oil sold by the assessee was covered by the notfn S.0.282 dated 7.6.1996 (sic dated 15.3.1996 as corrected by corrigendum dated 7.6.1996) [S. No. 1051 of Part II of the book by J.K. Jain & Prasoon Jain] prescribing rate of tax @ 2% on the inter -State sales made by the assessee subject to fulfillment of condition of furnishing of the declaration in form 'D' under the said notfn.

(3.) Both the authorities have held that since the condition of the notfn was satisfied by the respondent -assessee, the respondent assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax @ 2% under the said notfn.