9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entation that the petitioner may make within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the eventual decision to the petitioner, expeditiously. - Writ Petition No. 2665 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2010 - GODA RAGHURAM AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN, JJ. For the Appellant : Venkataraman, Senior Counsel instructed by R. Raghunandan For the Respondents : A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes and P. Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General, ORDER:- The order of the court was made by GODA RAGHURAM J.- Heard Sri Venkataraman, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Special Standing Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented by the petitioner was accepted by the second respondent who passed the order of assessment dated March 31, 2007 accepting the return. The third respondent issued a show-cause notice dated September 25, 2008 proposing to levy tax on ₹ 90,25,991 representing the tax element and by another notice dated December 16, 2009 proposed to withdraw the earlier notice dated September 25, 2008 and to levy tax on the entire contract value by treating the same as sale, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The proposal to revise was on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. [2005] 140 STC 22 (SC). The petitioner filed W.P. No. 29062 of 2009 challenging the proposals and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court, involving a question of law having a direct bearing on the order or proceeding in question, and if the discretion is exercised by the revisional authority to so defer the revisional proceeding, enacting that the period during which the stay order was in force or such appeal or proceeding was pending (before the High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be) shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in section 20(3), for the purpose of exercising the power under the said section. Sri Venkataraman, learned senior counsel would contend that the discretion conferred on the revisional authority under sub-section (6) of section 20 is a discretion coupled wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed in sub-section (2A) and subsection (6), on a true and fair construction of the provisions, sub-section (6) must be construed as inhering a discretion and not an obligation to defer, is the contention on behalf of the Revenue. Sri Koundinya would also contend that since the decision of the Supreme Court in Kone Elevators [2005] 140 STC 22 (SC) constitutes the law declared within the meaning of article 141, it is that law which binds the obligation of all authorities and not an embryonic or potential ratio that may be enunciated by the Constitution Bench after the reference is answered, nor does the mere fact of a reference having been made to a Larger Bench eclipse the ratio decidendi of Kone Elevators [2005] 140 STC 22 (SC). In the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
