9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the domain of the State Government, respondent No.1 erred in not confirming his actions to the notification. The impugned order at Annexure-C insofar as it relates to levying tax on mobile charges at 14.5% is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Authority for re-assessment in the light of the notification bearing No.FD 40 CSL 2005 (III) dated 31.03.2015 - petition allowed by way of remand. - WRIT PETITION No.25083/2018 (T RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.25084/2018 (T RES) - - - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - MR. G. NARENDAR J. Petitioner (By Sri. K.P. Kumar, Sr. Adv. For Sri. Sandeep Huilgol, Adv.) Respondents (By Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA) ORDER Both these petitions are taken up together in view of the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aka Act 32 of 2004) was pleased to reduce the rate of tax on mobile charger, irrespective of the fact whether the same is sold as an accessory or otherwise, to be charged at the rate of 5.5.% and the notification is w.e.f. 01.04.2015. He would further submit that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the present dispute involves the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 and hence, the product of the petitioner i.e., Mobile Charger are liable to be charged at the reduced rate of 5.5% only. He would also place before this Court a copy of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-respondent No.2 intimating the sub-ordinates to make change w.e.f. 01.04.2015 wherein at Sl.No.3 (3) one of the items in respect of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of State of Punjab is clearly misplaced. The respondent No.1 appears to have misread the issue on hand and failed to see that the Hon ble Apex Court has not gone into and adjudicated the issue as to whether the State Government was entitled to vary the rate of tax or not. The respondent No.1 has misdirected himself and thereby carried it on a tangent which was unnecessary. 13. The order impugned suffers from non-application of mind. The respondent No.1 cannot adjudicate with regard to the issue as to whether the State Government is entitled to reduce the rate of tax. The variation of the tax rates being within the domain of the State Government, respondent No.1 erred in not confirming his actions to the notification. Hence, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
