9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause, for the earlier assessment year 2010-11, identical issue has arisen and the petitioner has rightly preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Taking note of the fact that this is the second time, the petitioner is before the Court, raising very same contentions and that, similar issue is pending before the Appellate Authority, for the assessment year 2010-11, this Court would direct the petitioner to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Petition disposed off. - Writ Petition No.7983 of 2018 W.M.P.No.9943 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad For the Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan ORDER Heard Mr.N.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to support their stand that, the galvanizing work done by them, is a job work. The petitioner also pointed out the scope of the expression 'Works Contract', as defined under Section 2 (43) of the Act, and also referred to certain decisions in support of their stand, as to how, the transaction has to be taxed under the provisions of the Act in contra-distinction with the computation of tax under the provision of Central Sales Tax Act, etc. 3.2) The Court further held that the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the objections in proper manner and the order was very sketchy. Furthermore, the Court found that a specific date has to be fixed for personal hearing, and it cannot be rolled into a show cause notice. Ultimately, the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Act. 4.1) The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was taken by surprise on receiving the notice, dated 08.12.2017, in which, the Authority took a totally different stand from that of the stand taken in the revision notices, dated 06.09.2017 and 22.09.2017. On receipt of the notice, dated 08.12.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation/reply on 19.12.2017, requesting for four weeks time to collect details for seven years old records. However, without affording opportunity, the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel further submitted that, confirmation of the tax demand on the entire value of the article delivered by the petitioner to their clients after completion of galvanizing work is contrary to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e component, is without jurisdiction. So far as the service charges are concerned, petitioner has discharged the service tax liabilit and paid service tax on the labour charges, and therefore, levy of VAT on the entire value of the bill is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs. Union of India) reported in 145 STC 91. Further, without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, it is argued that the rate of tax cannot exceed 4% for the period upto 11.07.2011 and 5% for the period after 11.07.2011, since the components cleared after job work of galvanizing were only industrial input to be taxed at lower rate under Entry 67 of Part-B of the first schedule. 4.4) Further, it is submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent was justified in referring to the definition of the term 'Manufacture', under the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Since the facts are complicated and already the respondent appears to have a closed mind to the issue, presumably, because of a report of the Enforcement Wing Officials, in the best interest of the petitioner, they should pursue the matter before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Pollachi. This is more so, because, for the earlier assessment year 2010-11, identical issue has arisen and the petitioner has rightly preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. That apart, the Court has been informed that, similar issue arises for subsequent assessment years also, and also, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of, by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If this amount is paid by the petitioner, within the time permitted, then, the petitioner would be entitled to file Appeal within 7 days from the date on which, the payment is effected to the Appellate Authority. As and when, such an Appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the Appeal without rejecting it on the ground of limitation and decide the merits of the matter in accordance with law along with pending Appeal, pertaining to the AY 2010-11. It is made clear that, the sum of ₹ 25,00,000/-, which is being remitted by the petitioner, be reckoned as full com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
