9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In the judgment of Karya Palak Engineer, C.P.W.D., Bikaner [2004 (8) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is nowhere adjudicated by the honourable apex court that this adjudication will have retrospective effect. In this view of the matter no error has been committed by both the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur and learned Tax Board, Ajmer while adjudicating the appeals. The revision petition is, therefore, bereft of merit. - 59 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2009 - Gopal Krishan Vyas , J. ORDER:- GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS J. Instant sales tax revision petition has been filed under section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 against the judg ment dated June 18, 2008 passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer, by which the Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngles, etc. The apex court held that in the use or consumption of material supplied in the work of construction, there was passing of property and by virtue of receipt of value of such transferred property by way of adjustment in bills the consideration has also passed which satisfies the definition of sale in the local Sales Tax Act. Therefore, in view of the above judgment, the assessing authority passed the order of assessment from the year 1996 onward and the assessing authority imposed tax, penalty, interest and penalty under section 59, penalty under section 61 of the Sales Tax Act vide assessment order dated March 1, 2007. Against the said order passed by the assessing authority, appeal was preferred by the respondent before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to pass assessment order and, admittedly, assessing authority passed order on March 1, 2007, therefore, liability cannot be imposed prior to March 1, 2007, the day on which assessment order was passed by the assessing authority. In this case, the Department is challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order passed by the Tax Board on the ground that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court the supply of cement for construction purpose as per terms and conditions of the contract to various contractors by the Department was sale and they were required to pay tax upon the said sale, therefore, if the tax was not paid in time, then, obviously the petitioner-Department is entitled to levy interest as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is required to pay. Accordingly, the learned Tax Board has rightly adjudicated the matter that for the purpose of assessing interest and penalty for delayed payment, the assessing authority is required to pass order afresh and while passing such order he shall take into consideration the fact that he has passed the assessment order on March 1, 2007, after the judgment of the apex court on August 12, 2004 in the case of Karya Palak Engineer, C.P.W.D., Bikaner [2004] 136 STC 641 (SC); Tax Up-Date Vol. IX Pt. 8. In view of afore-mentioned position in the case, no substantial question of law emerges in this case because the apex court has only held that there is liability of tax upon the respondent with regard to supplied material for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
