9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner ORDER This order will dispose of VATAppeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2010, as it is stated that both the appeals involve common questions. VAT Appeal No. 73 of 2010 has been preferred by the Revenue under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, the Act ) against the order of the Punjab VAT Tribunal dated September 18, 2009, claiming following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Punjab VATTribunal, which is a creation of the CST Act, has erred in law by going against the mandate of section 8(5) of the Act, wherein any reduction in the rate of tax qua a dealer or goods or classes of goods was to be done in public interest by the State Government by way of a notification in the official gaz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en though the notification specified the condition of production of declaration made in form C and the State Government had no authority to reduce the rate of CST qua sales to Government till the amendment in the year 2002? (6) Whether the Punjab VATTribunal has ignored the fact that section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act prior to its amendment in 2002 whereby the words 'to the Government' were incorporated in it, allowed no authority to the State Governments to issue notifications allowing confessional rates of tax on sales to Government Departments as Parliament allowed such authority to State Governments only after amending section 8(5) with effect from April 1, 2002 and the notification in question was issued on March 31, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant remained inter-State sale, then whether appellant obtained and produced D forms against such sales or C forms, will not be very material. In fact the provisions of obtaining D forms is regarding sale made to Government Departments for which other Government Departments or the dealer may be getting some benefit as compared to sale made to private parties but here in this case the contention of the counsel of the State appears to be that appellant shall be put to disadvantage only because C forms were not taken. It comes out that when appellant had made inter-State sales to private parties, then C forms were taken but Government Departments were issuing only D forms and not C forms. In the rate contract also, the Director General of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
