9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2009-2010). Since the basic facts, relevant for decision, in all these trade tax revisions, are more or less identical, and legal issues involved are also same, all the trade tax revisions have been clubbed and are being decided by this common judgment. Commercial/Trade Tax Revision No. 710 of 2011 is being treated as the leading case. The Tribunal, under the impugned order, has recorded a finding that tax has been levied upon the assessee having regard to the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka reported in [2005] 141 STC 298 (SC); [2005] 27 NTN 243. The Tribunal after taking note of the contention raised on behalf of the assessee and havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TN 243 was distinguishable. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Limited v. State of Karnataka reported in [2008] 17 VST 460 (SC); [2008] 38 NTN 137, wherein a Division Bench of the Supreme Court has expressed doubts about the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka reported in [2005] 141 STC 298 (SC); [2005] 5 SCC 162; [2005] 27 NTN 243. Lastly, learned counsel for the assessee referred to the order of the Division Bench of this court dated September 7, 2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1286 of 2011 (Gaursons Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.). This Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority, it has to determine two factors, (a) prima facie case, and (b) undue financial hardship, which the assessee may face. So far as the issue of prima facie case is concerned, this court finds that the Tribunal is legally justified in recording a finding that liability to tax has been determined with reference to the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation [2005] 141 STC 298 (SC); [2005] 5 SCC 162; [2005] 27 NTN 243, which, as already noticed above, still holds the fields. On the issue of financial hardship which may be faced by the assessee, suffice is to record that the assessee had only filed his bank statement, for the purpose. For the reasons best known to him, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
