9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. That order was passed by the First Appellate Authority on 29-1-2016. The period in question is 2011-2012. The total liability determined by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 2,83,53,666/. The First Appellate Authority fixed a sum of Rs. 87,71,618/as part payment. Against such an order, the appeal to the Tribunal was filed. 3. The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority has determined the part payment amount on the basis of alternate submission and tax working given by the dealer. After considering the set off, the VAT amount is fixed at Rs. 59,46,184/. The First Appellate Authority added interest to this sum. 4. All that the Tribunal has done is to delete this sum of interest and has determined the part payment amount as Rs. 59,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2014) 71 VST 139 (All). She would also rely upon a Judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal No.1673 of 2009 {Bhailal Amin General Hospital Vs. State of Gujarat} and companion appeals, decided on 1-8-2016. 7. We have perused with her assistance the entire paperbook. Though reliance is placed upon a circular clarifying the legal position according to Ms Badheka, we do not think that we should pronounce upon the contents of this circular or the merits of the controversy. 8. Eventually, it is from the facts and circumstances in a particular case that the Tribunal or the Court of law can deduce as to whether a transaction of sale has taken place, or not, during the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue based on the Assessment Order, which is a speaking order, has not been finally accepted. Merely because a reference is made to a submission on the part of the Revenue that there would be set off to which the dealer would be entitled to, that alone has not gone in determining the partpayment. The Tribunal has brought down the sum. It has brought it down from Rs. 87 lakh and odd as determined by the First Appellate Authority to a sum of Rs. 59,46,184/. At the stage at which the matter was brought, it has deleted the quantum of interest. It has merely directed the appellant to secure the quantum of tax. To our mind, all the observations and findings in the impugned order are tentative and prima facie. They can never influence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of a stent being fixed or inserted in the body are similar or not must be determined by the Tribunal. 10. It would be wholly unsafe to make any conclusive remarks or observations. In the absence of complete materials, we do not think we would be justified in doing so. Equally, the Tribunal was not called upon to do so at the stage at which the matter was brought. 11. We do not think that with the above clarification, any substantial question of law would arise enabling us to entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 12. The time to deposit the amount is extended by four weeks. Since this matter pertains to a hospital and similar issues may crop up given the advance in science and technology and particularly in the field of medici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
