Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 567 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTax on differential turnover - whether the Pioma Industries, i.e., the petitioner herein and M/s Rasna Private Limited are related or they are two independent concerns in order to bring them within the purview of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act? Held that - In order to bring within the scope of the amended provisions of section 2(1)(s)(iv) of the APGST Act the Revenue is required to establish the case as indicated in Atic s case 1984 (6) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . It has been further made clear that the dealer sought to be brought under the amended provision must have interest in the business of the dealer alleged to be the related person and in turn the dealer alleged to be the related person to the petitioner-appellant should have interest in the business of each other, which means mutuality of interest. W.P. allowed and remanded. Set aside the impugned order dated March 31, 2007 passed by the first respondent and remit the matter to the first respondent with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with reference to the findings of the Supreme Court in Atic s case supra as directed by the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Counsel for the petitioner is given liberty to produce necessary material to satisfy the first respondent on the point whether the two concerns viz., Pioma Industries and Rasna Private Limited come within the purview of clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 2(l)(s) of the Act or not
|