TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order against which revision lies under Section 21 of the Act. Three years period cannot be said to be a very long period and therefore, in all these cases, we hold that the power was exercised within a reasonable period of time. As the petitioner strenuously contends that the point in the paragraph 6(v) of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 was decided wrongly, the Revisional Authority is directed to take into consideration of the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Embee Corporation [1997 (8) TMI 443 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] while interpreting the expression "sale occasions import" occurring in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act, it is not necessary that a completed sale should precede the import. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onvenience, paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 is reproduced hereunder: 6. The re-assessment order dated 21/05/2008 reflects the following against the observations of the Appellate Authority. (i) The purchase worth Rs.3,05,000.00 relates to Ductable Split Conditioner Unit and was supplied to G.B.P. Hospital against execution of works contract and no other local materials were purchased used. (ii) Regarding observation at point-ii, the reassessment order reveals that Air Conditioning equipments, spares and accessories worth Rs.8,42,400.00 purchased during 1999-2000 were disposed of by way of being used in execution of works contract at Agartala Airport in 2000-2001 and hence, no tax was paid in 1999-2000 but paid i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and deposited into Govt. Treasury. The Assessing Authority exempted the sale of 3 imported Chiller Machine for Rs.86,25,600.00 from local tax liability on the ground of transaction falling u/s 5(2) of the CST Act, 1956 though as per order of the Appellate Authority, the dealer charged 20% sale tax on the contract value worth of Rs.3,05,11,685.00 relating to the contract works of new terminal building of Agartala Airport, as evident from the invoices No.31290032 dated 29/03/2003 and invoice no.31290009 dated 11/05/2001. 4. At the very outset of the hearing, it is submission of Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the points mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors. 50. Now, the question that arises for our consideration is: whether the power to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction by the Joint Commissioner in the present cases was exercised within a reasonable period? 51. On perusal of the records, we find that such powers have been exercised within about three years of time in some cases and in some cases soon after the expiry of three years period. Such period during which power was exercised by the Joint Commissioner cannot be said to be unreasonable by any stretch of imagination in the facts of the present case. Three years period cannot be said to be a very long period and therefore, in all these cases, we hold that the power was exercised within a reasonable period of time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuously contends that the point in the paragraph 6(v) of the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 was decided wrongly, we direct the Revisional Authority to take into consideration of the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Embee Corporation : [1997] 107 STC 196 and Gannon Dunkerley Co. Ors. v. State of Rajasthan Ors. : [1993] 88 STC 204, while deciding the point/question mentioned in paragraph No.6(v) of the order dated 26.03.2012. 8. It is also made clear that the Revisional Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, shall take into consideration of all the points of fact and the law agitated by the writ petitioner in this writ petition while deciding Revision Case No.10/CH-IV/2011 by giving rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|