9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harashtra Value Added Tax Rules 2005 would be gone into in depth by the Appellate Authority at the final hearing. However, as the issue involved is one of interpretation of law, no deposit of amounts attributable to penalty should be insisted upon for the purpose of stay - Order modified - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2397 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2013 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Nikita Badheka with Mr. Parth Badheka i/by Dave Girish Co. For the Respondent : Mr. G. W. Mattows, AGP ORDER PC : Rule. Returnable forthwith. At the instance of the Counsel , the petition is taken up for final disposal. 1. By this writ petition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e unit holders who are called authorized participants and they entitled on redemption of their units to get gold in physical form or cash equivalent on the date of redemption. This delivery of gold by the petitioner to authorized participants on redemption is treated as sale by the Petitioner and 1% VAT is collected on such sale and deposited with the revenue. The gold purchased by the UTI GETF is on payment of value added tax on which the Petitioner claim Input Tax Credit. The Petitioner on account of Input Tax Credit claimed refund on account of set off to the extent the Value added tax had been paid on purchase of gold for the years 200708 and 200809. 3. The Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax has denied set off of VAT paid on purchase of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to receipts from all its business activities and not receipts in respect of commodities alone. 5. The orders impugned in the petition viz. order dated 29 July 2013 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal and order dated 3 September 2013 have been passed on application to stay the order of the Assessing Officer pending disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. Therefore the merits of the controversy and the interpretation of Rule 53(6)(b) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules 2005 would be gone into in depth by the Appellate Authority at the final hearing. However, as the issue involved is one of interpretation of law, no deposit of amounts attributable to penalty should be insisted upon for the purpose of stay. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
