9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 569 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReopening of assessment - turn over relating to extended warranty as well as logistic charges is subject to tax - Held that - The issue of tax on turn over relating to extended warranty and logistic charges should be taken initially before the same authority, who has issued notice to petitioner as although this is purely a legal question and should be decided as a preliminary issue, but assessing officer will not decide it as a preliminary issue and will decide along with main case. Since, prima facie, it appears to be a legal question and in case the objection is allowed, then notice is liable to be consigned to record or discharged, therefore, it will be proper for the concerned authority to hear and decide this question first as a preliminary issue. It is made clear that in case, any adverse order is passed, then it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
Issues:
Challenge to reopening of assessment order regarding 'extended warranty' and 'logistic charges' for tax liability. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for reopening the assessment order related to 'extended warranty' and 'logistic charges'. The petitioner argued that the turnover concerning these charges is not taxable, thus the notices lack jurisdiction. The court considered the submissions and highlighted that the objection regarding tax liability should be raised initially before the same authority that issued the notice. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concern that the assessing officer might not treat it as a preliminary issue and decide it along with the main case. Therefore, the court directed the concerned authority to hear and decide this question as a preliminary issue before making any final decision on the matter. The court disposed of the writ petition and instructed that if the petitioner raises the objection before the concerned authority, it should be heard and decided as a preliminary issue before any final order is passed based on the notices. The court clarified that if an adverse order is given, the petitioner can challenge it before the appropriate forum as per the law. Additionally, the stay application filed by the petitioner was also disposed of in the judgment.
|
