9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 155 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImplementation of judgment Petitioners seek implementation of order and judgment passed by Bombay high court in Bombay Tarpaulin Merchants Association v. State of Maharashtra 2009 (8) TMI 1081 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Held that - From reading order and judgment, it is clear that it was held that communication was one under section 52(1) Order of Division Bench requires Commissioner to comply with procedure under section 52(2A) if communication dated October 1, 2001, was passed after approval of Commissioner It is only member whose activities conformed to those mentioned in communication dated October 1, 2001 who would be entitled to benefit mentioned therein Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Implementation of a previous order and judgment dated August 7, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2008; Interpretation of a communication dated October 1, 2001 by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax; Typographical error in referring to section 52(1) instead of section 52(2); Contention regarding the communication not being an order under section 52(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act; Potential review petition by the respondents; Entitlement of benefit to members based on conformity with the communication dated October 1, 2001. The judgment pertains to the petitioners seeking the implementation of an order and judgment from August 7, 2009, in Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2008. The order directed compliance with the procedure under section 52(2A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act if a specific communication was approved by the Commissioner. A typographical error in the order referred to section 52(1) instead of section 52(2). The issue arose from a communication dated October 1, 2001, where the Assistant Commissioner clarified the tax liability of the petitioners based on their activities. The respondents argued that the communication was not an order under section 52(1), but the court disagreed, citing the Division Bench's judgment. The respondents indicated a potential review petition, which would be decided separately. The Division Bench's order required the Commissioner to follow the procedure under section 52(2A) if the communication from 2001 was approved by the Commissioner. The court clarified that it could not compel the Commissioner to review the communication, but if done, it must align with section 52(2A). The liability of the assessees would be impacted based on the Commissioner's actions. Additionally, the respondents contended that mere membership in the petitioner association did not automatically grant the tax benefit mentioned in the 2001 communication. The court agreed, stating that only members whose activities aligned with the communication would be entitled to the benefit. The judgment highlighted that this observation was based on the assumption that the 2001 communication constituted an order under section 52(1). In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of based on the existing order and judgment from 2009. The court emphasized that any potential review of the judgment could alter the situation significantly, indicating that the entitlement to benefits could change accordingly.
|
