9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of defective parts during the warranty period of motor cars and for which manufacturer is issuing credit notes. - as manufacturer would have paid taxes if he brought defective parts from market, the position would not be different in case of assessee who supplied parts and received price for it. - Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the appeals and confirming the imposition of tax and interest on sale of parts during the warranty period of motor cars. No substantial question of law arise as sought to be suggested - Decided against assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 41 of 2015 With TAX APPEAL NO. 42 of 2015 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 43 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. S.H.VORA, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MS. GARGI VYAS, LD. ADV FOR M/S WADIAGHANDY CO, ADVOCATE ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such they arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) and even the dispute is between the same parties but with respect to different Assessment Years, all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Therefore, while touching the merits of the matter, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the three appeals. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the three separate orders dated 21.5.2014 passed by the learned First Appellate Authority, the assessee/ dealer preferred Second Appeal Nos. 411 of 2014 to 413 of 2014 and by impugned common judgment and order, the learned Tribunal Tribunal has partly allowed the said appeals removing penalty imposed, however confirmed the imposition of tax and interest. It appears that thereafter the assessee / dealer preferred three rectification application nos. 20 of 2014 to 22 of 2014 to rectify, clarify and / or modify the earlier common order that the tax element is to be deducted from the credit notes received for the spare parts and not as per the amount mentioned in the provincial order. That by common order dated 18.09.2014, the learned Tribunal has disposed of all the aforesaid rectification applications by clarifying that tax element is to be deducted from the credit notes received for the spare parts. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision Bench, it was found that the cost which manufacturer incurred in manufacturing samples were taken in to account at the time of fixing price of rest of the articles. It is submitted that on finding above, the Division Bench has held that assessee is liable to pay sales tax on the distribution of free samples. 3.3. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Marudhara Motors (supra) and making above submissions, it is requested to admit / allow present appeals. 4.0. Present appeals are opposed by Ms. Vacha Desai, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent State - Revenue. It is submitted that as such the assessee / dealer made the payment of tax and interest and the only question submitted before the learned Tribunal was with respect to the penalty. It is submitted that in fact the purshis was also submitted before the learned Tribunal submitting that as the assessee / dealer had already made payment of tax and interest, the penalty be removed. It is submitted that considering the purshis submitted by the assessee / dealer before the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal had by common judgment and order removing the order of penalty by obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant-assessee- dealer is not liable to pay tax on the sales of parts during the warranty period of the motor cars. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that as such the appellant - assesseedealer is purchasing the parts from the open market and is replacing the same in place of defective parts during the warranty period of motor cars and for which manufacturer is issuing credit notes. The aforesaid issue / issues involved in the present appeal is as such squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan and Sons (supra). While considering the provision of Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the levy of tax on replacement of defective parts of vehicle during the warranty period dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the High Court holding that such transactions constitute sale attracting levy of tax and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held since assessee had received the payment of parts supplied to customers, transactions were subject to levy of tax. It is further observed and held that as manufacturer would have paid taxes if he brought defective parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
