9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Taxes) For the Respondent : Mr. N. Inbarajan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M. Jaichandren,J) The Tax Case Revisions have been filed against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, dated 23.12.2003, confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), dated 7.3.2000. 2. In Tax Case (Revision) No.236 of 2006, the following sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, whether the possession of the goods has to be given to the user of the goods." 4. The order under challenge relates to assessment years 1991-92 and 1993-94. The respondent is a private limited company engaged in the activity of off-shore oil exploration for Government contractors, viz., O.N.G.C, Shipping Corporation of India and Madras Refineries Limited. For carrying out such activities, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 1993-1994, apart from surcharge, additional surcharge, and penalty was also levied, under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai. The said appeals was allowed by a common order, dated 7.3.2000. The said order had been challenged by the Revenue before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipments, with their specialised personnel, and that no other person had any access to the equipments, except the staff of the respondent company. As such, the Tribunal held that there was no transfer of the right to use the equipments. Even the O.N.G.C. had no right to use the equipments on their own. However, the physical possession and the effective control of the equipments had been given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
