9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent assessee, a contractor of MES, entered into an agreement with Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Uttarlai, in respect of construction of buildings, and purchased material on 'C' form declaration in terms of Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules 1957 out of the State, for which the assessee was issued exemption certificate. The assessing authority, while making assessment, added the transportation charges and profit on the goods purchased from outside Rajasthan on declaration 'C' and also imposed surcharge and interest on the ground that the assessee had not complied with the Condition No.4 of the Notification dated 28.04.1993 issued by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing authority has not properly construed and interpreted Section 4(2)/15 of the Act of 1994. The appellate authority further held that the assessing authority has shown over-enthusiasm while interpreting the provisions of law by giving extended meaning to the intent of the legislation. Finally, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and quashed the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. While rendering its decision, the appellate authority has also placed reliance on the decision of the learned Rajasthan Tax Board. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner Revenue has assailed the same by way of appeal before the learned Tax Board, and the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the respondent is that the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and its affirmation by the learned Tax Board cannot be faulted and no interference with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is warranted. Mr. Balia would urge that there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, and that being so, no question of law being involved in the matter, the revision petition merits dismissal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and scanned the entire record of the Tax Board. The core issue requiring adjudication in this revision petition hovers around interpretation of Section 4(2)/15 of the Act of 1994 and how and in what manner th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 and the Act of 1956 are separate and distinct enactments covering different spheres, and any notification issued under the Act of 1994, therefore, ipso facto cannot be applied vis-à-vis a transaction for which tax rebate is claimed by the assessee within the four corners of the Act of 1956. The concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below in the given circumstances has persuaded this Court not to concur with an illogical conclusion of the assessing authority. The learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to lay his hand on any of the binding legal precedent throwing light on the matter in issue so as to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact. On the contrary, the consistent view of the Tax Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
