9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was now ready to file the duplicate 'C' and 'H' forms to avail concessional rate of tax / exemption from payment of tax, and it is only upon discovery of the new and important facts, which were not within the knowlege of the Assessee despite due diligence, there can be ground for review, which is not the case in the present facts of the case. Since the Assessee was not entitled to claim the concessional rate of tax / exemption from payment of tax on the basis of duplicate 'C' and 'H' forms as per the law settled, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in rejecting the Review Application filed by the Assessee - petition dismissed. - W.P.No.44190 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2020 - Dr. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TNGST Act. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference. 6. Point : We find that the TA No.572/2000 was dismissed on 29.06.2001 stating that the applicant has not filed any declaration forms for verification before us to allow the reduced, concessional rate of tax 4%. But the applicant now in this application pleaded that they are now filing the duplicate 'C' forms for ₹ 1,99,266/- and form 'H' duplicate and duplicate bill of lading for ₹ 22,176/-. The facts urged before us in this review application is whether the application filed on the basis of the discovery of new and important facts which after the exercise of due diligence were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that there is no suggestion anywhere that there is anything wrong with the genuineness of the transaction or any doubts as to the possession by the purchasing dealer on a certificate enabling the sellers to obtain the concessional rate of tax under Section 8 of the Act. Under such circumstances, the authorities should not have taken the strict view in rejecting the claim of the concessional rate of tax. At first sight, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be genuine and acceptable but considering the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Act and Rules, this Court is called upon to decide the questions involved in this case. The provisions being mandatory they should have been complied with. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion filed by the Assessee has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Not only the controversy on merits is covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court consistently, but the scope of the Review prescribed under Section 37(7)(a) of the TNGST Act also does not permit the Tribunal to review the original order made on the basis of the claim of the Assessee that he was now ready to file the duplicate 'C' and 'H' forms to avail concessional rate of tax / exemption from payment of tax, and it is only upon discovery of the new and important facts, which were not within the knowlege of the Assessee despite due diligence, there can be ground for review, which is not the case in the present facts of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
