9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal basis and not on the basis of the agency which forms the foundational difference according to the Rajasthan High Court in Marudhara Motors [2009 (3) TMI 956 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] for not applying the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan. Appeal dismissed. - Mah. Value Added Tax Appeal No. 47 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Sandip D. Ghaterao i/by. Mr. N.V. Tapare, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the State-respondent. P.C. :- 1. This Appeal under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 (the Act) challenges the order dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Apex Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., (2004) Vol.136 Sales Tax Cases 515. The impugned order of the Tribunal also records that the case of the appellant is identical to the facts before the Apex Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan (supra). 5. The grievance of the appellant before us is that the issue arising in the present facts is more appropriately covered by the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commercial Tax Officer, (Anti- Evasion), Jodhpur Vs. Marudhara Motors, [2010] Vol. 29 VST 114 (Raj). It is submitted that the above decision of the Rajasthan High Court has distinguished the decision of Mohd. Ekram Khan (supra) on the basis of a fundamental difference in the facts bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under : 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant sought to make a distinction by urging that in Mohd. Ekram Khan's case, the relationship between the parties involved an agency whereas in the present case the transaction was on a principal to principal basis. This was based on a sentence in the judgment of the Supreme Court while recording the facts that the assessee was an agent of the automotive manufacturer. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in a significant amount of detail and has noted the submission of the Revenue that this expression was used in the judgment of the Supreme Court in its commercial sense. That apart, the Revenue produced a copy of the dealership agreement between the automotive manufacturer, Mahi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
