9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed October 1, 2001 who would be entitled to benefit mentioned therein – Petition disposed off. - Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2014 - S. J. VAZIFDAR AND B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. C.B. Thakkar and Mukund M. Vaidya for the Petitioner B.B. Sharma, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. The petitioners, in effect, seek the implementation of an order and judgment dated August 7, 2009, (Bombay Tarpaulin Merchants' Association v. State of Maharashtra[2009] 26 VST 45 (Bom)) in Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2008 . The operative part of the order and judgment reads as under:- 8. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, this petition can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntaining the shed for given period. The charges are quantified per square feet and they are not qua materials. You have further claimed that in the similar circumstances the verdict given by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Modern Decorators v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in[1990] 77 STC 470 (WBTT) is applicable to your case. Your application has been duly examined in this office. Accordingly, I am to inform you that your members do not lease out the materials used for erecting the shed but use the materials for the erection of the sheds and charge for erection and use of shed so erected and therefore there will be no liability to pay tax under the Lease Act. With this communication your application stands disposed of. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessees. Mr. Sharma submitted in the alternative that merely by virtue of being a member of the petitioner, an assessee would not get the benefit of what is stated in the communication dated October 1, 2001. Prima facie, at least, the submission is well founded. It is only a member whose activities conformed to those mentioned in the communication dated October 1, 2001 who would be entitled to the benefit mentioned therein. We hasten to add that this observation is on the basis that the communication dated October 1, 2001, is an order under section 52(1). If the order and judgment dated August 7, 2009 (Bombay Tarpaulin Merchants' Association v. State of Maharashtra[2009] 26 VST 45 (Bom)), is reviewed, the situation may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
