9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit under the Scheme not being disturbed. It is not the case of the Applicant that benefit availed/granted under the Scheme is being disturbed. Therefore, Applicant was aware of the assessment order being subject to further proceedings while seeking to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. It is undisputed position before us that benefit which was granted under the Amnesty Scheme continues to be in favour of the Applicant. There is no variation in the same - In view of self evident position of law, the question as proposed does not give rise to any question of law which would warrant disturbing the order dated 27.4.2017, rejecting the application to refer the question of law to this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed, after the assessment order reached to finality, in view of the 'order passed under the Amnesty Scheme 2004' ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that we are of the view, that 'tax' is assessed properly @4% instead of 2%, though 'composition' and not the 'tax' has been levied by the revising authority ? 2. This Application relates to Financial Year 1999-2000. 3. The Applicant is a works contractor duly registered under the Works Contract Act. The Applicant was assessed to composition tax @ 2% under Section 6A(1)(i) of the Works Contract Act on the total contract value of ₹ 80,90,282/. The Tax determined as payable was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal by its order dated 7.7.2016 rejected the Applicant's contention holding that there is no bar under the Act which prohibit a revision under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act of an assessment order. Further, it also held that the tax has been properly assessed by the Revisional Authorities at 4% instead of 2% as the work executed was not a works contract and the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Reference No.55 of 2014 in the case of Permasteelisa (India) Private Limited was followed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2016, Applicant filed Reference Application to the Tribunal under Section 61(1) of the Act seeking reference to this Court principally on two questions being pressed before us. The Tribunal by order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amnesty Scheme, 2004 was itself subject to the department having right to pass further statutory orders for enhancement of tax, penalty or interest even in respect of the orders for which Amnesty is granted. This of course is subject to the benefit under the Scheme not being disturbed. It is not the case of the Applicant that benefit availed/granted under the Scheme is being disturbed. Therefore, Applicant was aware of the assessment order being subject to further proceedings while seeking to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. It is undisputed position before us that benefit which was granted under the Amnesty Scheme continues to be in favour of the Applicant. There is no variation in the same. 10. In view of self evident position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
