9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Godrej G.E. Appliances Limited [2011 (3) TMI 1548 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as also Commercial Taxes Officer v. Weston Electroniks Ltd. reported in [1991 (11) TMI 225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 9 of 2008 ,S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 354 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2012 - ALOK SHARMA, J. For the Appellant : R.B. Mathur Senior Counsel with Ms. Tanvi Sahai For the Respondent : J.K. Ranka Senior Counsel with N.K. Baid, ALOK SHARMA J.- In both the petitions, the challenge is to the orders of Rajasthan Tax Board both passed on December 5, 2002 holding that optional service/warranty charges were not included in the price of the goods sold (refrigerators) as they do not constitute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied while in others they were not. He submit that this finding of fact clinches the issue in favour of the assessee establishing as it does that charge in issue was not universal but optional. He submits that in this view of facts obtaining on record, the case of the respondent-assessee is covered by the judgments of this court delivered in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Godrej G.E. Appliances Limited [2011] 46 VST 372 (Raj) (S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 47 and 49 of 2005 decided on March 30, 2011) as also the judgment of this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Weston Electroniks Ltd. reported in [1992] 87 STC 522 (Raj), which enunciates the principle that payment made by the customer to dealers at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds sold exigible to tax in view of the judgments of this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Godrej G.E. Appliances Limited [2011] 46 VST 372 (Raj) as also Commercial Taxes Officer v. Weston Electroniks Ltd. reported in [1992] 87 STC 522 (Raj). I find in the facts obtaining in the two revision petitions before me that the impugned orders of the Rajasthan Tax Board are sound and able judgments on facts and law obtaining. It would also be relevant to note that the Rajasthan Tax Board had decided five appeals in favour of the respondentassessee by a common order dated December 5, 2002. Mr. Mathur has admitted to the fact that revisions against three of the said appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution by this court as early a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
