9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Second Appeals No.786 and 785 of 2011 by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law:- "[1] Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in permitting adjustment of input tax credit arising from Value Added Tax Act to the Central Sales Tax Act?" 2. The facts stated briefly are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing Polyester Filament Yarns, Polyester Chips, Nylone Type Cord, Fabrics, etc. and is duly registered under the provisions of the Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. Under Section 11 of the Act, a registered dealer, who has purchased taxable goods (purchasing dealer), is entitled to claim tax credit equal to the amount stated thereunder. However, the amount of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round of appeal. It was submitted that in the present case, the respondent-assessee was enjoying exemption under the incentive scheme declared by the State Government and therefore, the decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal requires consideration on the question as proposed or as may be formulated by the Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Jeevan Vasava, learned Advocate for the respondent-assessee invited the attention of the Court to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as the findings recorded by the Tribunal, to point out that the Tribunal has recorded a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of amount of tax at the rate of 4 per cent is to be done for the taxable goods which fall in any of the three categories contained in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) and not every time a particular class of goods specified fall in more than one categories. Thus, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case and hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity, warranting interference. 6. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly summarily dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
