9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the Commissioner could get jurisdiction to assess the transaction under the Act. It is not in dispute that no notice had been issued to the petitioner for seeking to revise the order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The matter is remitted back to the revisional authority for recording finding as regards the buyers of the DEPB sold by the petitioner from its Chandigarh office and thereafter examine the consequence thereof - petition allowed by way of remand. - U.V.R. No. 7 of 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - Rajesh Bindal and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. Shri Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Rajesh Bindal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner-company for the year 2002-03 was framed by the assessing authority vide assessment order dated 28-9-2004. Whatever amount of tax was assessed, the same was adjusted against the limit, for which the petitioner had been granted exemption from payment of tax. During the year in question, the petitioner had received DEPB, which is a tradable commodity on 16-8-2001 at Chandigarh office. The petitioner-company even received import/export licence at the Chandigarh address of the petitioner-company. The DEPB, which is a tradable commodity was sold by the petitioner from its Chandigarh office to the buyers located at Calcutta and Delhi and even the payment was also received at Chandigarh. The goods never entered in the State of Punj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated in different States outside the State of Punjab. He further submitted that despite the contention regarding the transaction being in the course of inter-State trade from Chandigarh and the buyers being outside the State of Punjab, neither the revisional authority nor the Tribunal has considered this aspect. No notice under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 had been issued. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that transaction had rightly been taxed, as admittedly DEPB is a tradable commodity leviable to tax. The petitioner-company merely had its registered office at Chandigarh, DEPB and the import licence, which were sold by it, were received as a result of goods manufactured and exported from the facility ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
