9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty had been imposed vide order dated 30.5.2011 which had been affirmed by the DETC (A) and the Tribunal - The Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battulal's case having been overruled by the Full Bench decision in Shyama Charan Shukla's case [1974 (4) TMI 90 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] which decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in Shyama Charan Shukla's case [1990 (9) TMI 296 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it would be appropriate that the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law. - VATAP-299-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-3-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is an independent entity being run by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and is providing facilities such as restaurant service, books, rooms for guests besides being used by the Government officials for staying and meeting purposes. The appellant had applied for registration vide application dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure A-1) for the purpose of sales tax. Vide notice dated 4.7.2000 (Annexure A-2), the Department had asked for certain documents. The said documents were supplied to the Department. The appellant vide letter dated 4.5.2001 (Annexure A-3) requested for withdrawal of the application for grant of registration certificate, but no action was taken thereon. The appellant filed sales tax return in Form ST- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.12.2010 had passed the assessment order against the appellant by relying upon the division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battulal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore, 1962 (Vol. XIII) STC 893 holding that provision of Section 11(6) of the PGST Act are identical to Section 11(5) of Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act. Thereafter, penalty of ₹ 4,55,000/- was imposed vide order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure A-5). The order of the assessing authority imposing penalty was affirmed in appeal by the DETC(A) and the Tribunal. It was urged that the said Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
