9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot 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. - TC (Revision).No.386 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Haribabu Addl. Govt. Pleader For the Respondent : Mr. Sivanandam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate form. On a reading of the proceedings of the Director of Tourism Department dated 29.11.99, it is evident that as requested by the assessee, the star category was granted to the assessee with effect from 21.7.98, it being the date of application. In the background of star category granted with effect from 21.7.98, the liability at 8% on the taxable turnover was held justified. Thus, the assessee's appeal was rejected by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee filed review petition before the Tribunal in CTRA.No. 3/02. The assessee sought for review on the ground that the star status of the assessee's hotel came into force during the assessment year 1999-2000 only and that the India Tourism (Chennai) had issued a letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atus from 13.10.1999 under proceedings dated 13.8.2002 and submitted that the Tribunal had rightly taken note of the subsequent order which was not available at the time of Tribunal passed order rejecting the assessee's appeal. Hence, no fault could be seen on this order. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1988) 70 STC 191 STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER v. P.K.SYED AKBAR SAHIB, (2000) 118 STC 290 TEXMACO LTD AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER and (1998) (9) SC 313 BRITISH PHYSICAL LAB INDIA LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER and submitted that when the section itself does not speak on restrictions to be read into the scope of powers on review, subsequent development could not be held against the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise for a rehearing. 6. Admittedly, the first order of the Tribunal 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. On the other hand, even going by the date of the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
