9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning of power plant equipments. In different years the petitioner's Haridwar unit supplied component parts to Trichy unit and to Hyderabad unit. Trichy unit and Hyderabad unit were the executing units for the supply of the boiler packages and turbo generating package respectively. As is alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the component parts were sent by the petitioner at the site outside the State of U.P. on the directions of the executing unit. It is alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that Trichy unit and Hyderabad unit raised the invoices for the complete package inclusive of the component parts supplied by the petitioner and treated the transaction as, inter alia, sale and paid Central sales tax in their respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 985, which was subsequently rectified under section 22, again treated the entire inter-unit transfers at Rs. 2,90,57,905.57 and levied total tax at Rs. 20,95,709.56 as inter-State sales. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner (judicial), Sales Tax, Saharanpur, which was dismissed on 31st December, 1985. The petitioner has filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur, which is pending. For the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80,1980-81 and 1981-82 the sales tax authorities of the State of U.P. did not accept the claim of exemption made by the petitioner and treated the transaction as interState sales from U.P. The correctness of the assessment orders have been challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Sales Tax Commissioner, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution on the grounds of law alleged in the writ petition. Moreover, the grounds taken cannot be decided divorced from the facts arising in each assessment year separately. The facts have to be considered and findings recorded thereon. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeals, which are pending and it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to quash the orders aforesaid under article 226 of the Constitution. The enormity of the amount involved would not, in the circumstances of the present case, be a ground by itself to invoke article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner can approach the Commissioner of Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
