9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of eligibility certificate. The prayer was allowed by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated April 22, 1981. Thereafter on the prayer of the applicant the eligibility certificate was renewed for a further period up to December 31, 1982. Two applications were subsequently made by the applicant for renewal of the eligibility certificateone on December 28, 1982 and the other on July 19, 1983. The applications are pending. In the meantime the Additional Commissioner drew up a suo motu revision proceedings and by his order dated February 15, 1984 set aside the order granting the eligibility certificate by the Assistant Commissioner. The order dated February 15, 1984 is the order challenged before us. The Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt reported in [1957] 8 STC 561 (A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala). It is a five Bench decision of the Supreme Court. It is observed in the said case as follows: "There is a broad distinction between the provisions contained in the statute in regard to the exemptions of tax or refund or rebate of tax on the one hand and in regard to the non-liability to tax or non-imposition of tax on the other. In the former case, but for the provisions as regards the exemptions or refund or rebate of tax, the sales or purchases would have to be included in the gross turnover of the dealer because they are prima facie liable to tax and the only thing which the dealer is entitled to in respect thereof is the deduction from the gross turnover in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because he had himself argued in the case of Presidency Kid Leather (Pvt). Ltd. [1991] 80 STC 338 (WBTT) ; (1989) 22 STA 425 (WBTT) that the liability to pay tax under section 4 is one thing and whether or not any tax is demanded after deductions and after taking into account eligible exemptions is another things. It was his contention that the liability under section 4 was there in any event. We have accepted the contention in the case of Presidency Kid Leather (Pvt.) Ltd. [1991] 80 STC 338 (WBTT) ; (1989) 22 STA 425 (WBTT). We see no reason to take a different view now. Since the order of the Additional Commissioner was founded on this ground alone it can hardly be supported. We agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
