9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and that the amount, namely 2.5% was exempted by virtue of the Notification issued u/s 12 of the Sales Tax Act – No question of law involved - Interference into the matter not required now when the respondent is not being served and his whereabouts are unavailable - Decided against revenue. - S.T.R. No. 55 / 1999 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - Rajendra Menon And A. K. Sharma,JJ. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case and in the light of Notification No. A-5-11-78(23)ST-V dated 8.10.78. The Tribunal was justified to hold that the dealer is eligible to set off @ 2.5% instead of 2%. It is seen that for the year in question, the respondent dealer sought set off from payment of excise duty @ 2.5% instead of 2% as granted. The matter travelled upto the Board of Revenue and the Board by its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milar question as is indicated in the Reference has been considered and in paragraph 7, the matter has been dealt with in the following manner: 7. Since the liability to pay entry tax was by virtue of the provisions of that Act and that the amount, namely 2.5% was exempted by virtue of the Notification issued u/s 12 of the Sales Tax act, a copy whereof has been marked as Annexure C‟, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed under the Notification (Annexure C‟ for our present purpose), it is a different matter altogether that the petitioner has not actually had to discharge the liability of payment under the ET Act. Taking any contrary view of the matter would render the provision with regard to incentive absolutely nugatory. Even if inspite of exemption the petitioner was liable to pay @ 4%, it would oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
