9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision rendered by the Court cannot be made applicable. If done so, it would amount to “putting the cart before horse”. The contentions raised by the petitioner not acceptable that they should be permitted to bypass the statutory appellate remedy - Writ Petition not maintainable. Liberty granted to the petitioner to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority. If the petitioner files Appeal within 30 days, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the same without reference to limitation - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - WP.No.28082 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.24235 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2016 - Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For the Respondent : Mrs.Vasudha Thiyagarajan Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the proposal is that, M/s.Mahindra Residential Developers Limited, is a co-developer, in the Mahindira World City SEZ, and their authorized operations is limited to developing residential facilities inside the SEZ and is also an activity in the non-processing area of the SEZ. The construction of the residential complex is not related to the activities of development, operation and maintenance of the SEZ, which are authorized operations, vested in the main developer of the said SEZ, and the aforesaid co-developer is not playing any role, in any one of these activities. Therefore, the respondent's proposing to construe the sale of goods by the dealer to the co-developer M/s.Mahindra Residential Developers Limited, will not fall within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to SEZ units. Further, by referring to circular No.25 of 2014, dated 30.05.2014, the petitioner reiterated their stand that they are exempt from levy of tax. The petitioner were offered an opportunity of personal hearing, and thereafter, the respondent has proceeded to complete the assessment, by passing order, dated 30.06.2016, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 6. At the very outset, this Court pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, as against the impugned order, the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy, by filing an Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai (East), and the reason for bypassing such a remedy. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner elaboratel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom, the petitioner supplied UPVC Doors and Windows is available on lease basis to both SEZ and Domestic Tariff Area entities. 9. In my view, to test the correctness of the impugned order, factual aspects have to be gone into as regards the project implemented by the co-developer. While, it may not be in dispute that the co-developer is engaged in developing the project in SEZ, it is to be seen as to whether the project of developing residential complexes is one of the approved projects, would fall within the authorized operations. Though the letter, dated 08.06.2009, issued by the Assistant Development Commissioner, pertains to service tax claim, yet, the larger question would be, as to whether, if it is part of service, did not find pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
