9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 52(2), the question of complying with section 52(2A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act would not arise. The Commissioner is then to inform the petitioners about the same. Petitioner No. 1 and its members would then be free to take recourse to law for whatever relief they are entitled to. - Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2009 - FERDINO I. REBELLO AND KARNIK D.G., JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by FERDINO I. REBELLO J. Rule. Heard forthwith. Petitioner No. 1 appears to be an association of traders engaged along with others in the activities of providing temporary tarpaulin sheds to industrial concerns. It is the contention of the association that they look after general welfare activities of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of erecting temporary sheds, made representation to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State by letter dated July 23, 2001 seeking clarification in respect of the said liability. The Commissioner of Sales Tax vide his letter dated October 1, 2001 clarified that the activity of the members of petitioner No. 1 of providing temporary sheds does not amount to a leasing activity within the meaning of the Act. It may be set out that the clarification was that the activity of the members of the first petitioner are not covered within the ambit of Lease Act, 1985 as the activity was considered not to amount to leasing of any goods. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 received another communication on May 18, 2005. By this communication, it was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners are easily identifiable and they are deliverable and brought to the place of the customers of the petitioners for being put up as sheds at the premises of the customers of the petitioners. This activity of the members of the petitioners falls under the legal statutory provisions and is hence exigible to tax under the statute. He then pointed out that the letter dated October 1, 2001 issued by the office of respondent No. 2 was in response to the letter addressed by the petitioner on July 23, 2001. The Desk Officer of respondent No. 2, therefore, issued the letter dated October 1, 2001 in response to the letter of the petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though in the reply it has been set out that the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
