9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 631 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAssessment of turnover of star rated hotel - Tribunal held assessment based on star rating would be applicable from subsequent year - Held that - first order of the Tribunal rejecting application was passed on 20.5.2002, however, subsequent thereto, the assessee admittedly received orders from the Tourism Department on 13.8.2002 changing the date of classification issued originally in its order dated 29.11.1999. Thus, amended classification granting star status from 13.10.99 for a period of three years came into existence long after the order of the Tribunal; thus this letter cannot be stated as a fact which was there already at the time when the Tribunal passed the order on 20.5.2002, which, the assessee could not place it before the Tribunal for its consideration - Following decisions of STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER v. P.K.SYED AKBAR SAHIB 1988 (1) TMI 37 - SUPREME Court , TEXMACO LTD AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER 1998 (8) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB INDIA LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER 1998 (9) TMI 546 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining the review application filed by the assessee under Section 36(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, based on subsequent letter received from the Government of India? Analysis: The Tax Case Revision was filed by the Revenue against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1998-99. The Tribunal had revised the assessment of the assessee at 8% instead of 2% for the sale of food and drinks. The assessee had received star category status from the Tourism Department with effect from 21.7.98, but the communication was received after 29.11.99. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal, leading to a review petition by the assessee based on a subsequent letter received from India Tourism. The Tribunal allowed the review, prompting the Revenue to file a revision before the High Court. The Tribunal considered the review petition valid as it was based on new and important facts not available during the original order. The High Court was referred to previous decisions emphasizing that review powers could only be exercised when new and important facts were discovered post the original order. The High Court held that subsequent decisions by higher authorities could not be considered new and important facts for review purposes. The Court emphasized that review powers were limited by statute and could not be used as an appeal in disguise. The High Court noted that the amended classification granting star status to the assessee came into existence after the Tribunal's original order. The Court rejected the plea based on previous Supreme Court decisions, stating that the facts of those cases did not apply to the current situation. The Court emphasized that the assessee had the option to seek relief from the Government under Section 17 of the Act for any hardship caused by the factual error. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the Tax Case Revision filed by the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
