9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons are common, this Court proceeds to decide both the Writ Petitions by this common order. 2. The challenge in both Writ Petitions is the Orders passed by the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur whereby the challenge to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur dated 14.12.2017 has been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax Division-1 Raipur initiated a re-assessment proceeding and passed an order on 26.03.2016 under the provision of the Chhattisgarh Vat Act 2005. The Assistant Commissioner while passing the said order, had disallowed Input Tax Rebate (ITR) in-respect-of the GST purchases made from few of the companies. The dis-allowance primarily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner Of Commercial Tax passed in TAXC No. 74 of 2022 wherein also the case of M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra) has been reiterated by the Division Bench. Thus, the present Writ Petitions also deserve to be allowed. 8. The Counsel for the Respondents/State, opposing the petition, don't object to the factual matrix of the case so far as the re-assessment proceedings having been initiated on the deemed assessment submitted by the petitioner. 9. However, certain primarily objections have been raised by the State, as regards the maintainability of both the Writ Petitions, firstly that of there being a statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 55 of preferring a reference. According to the State Counsel, sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference, the Writ Petitions therefore should not be entertained on this ground also. 12. However, so far as the question of applicability of the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s Tata Teleservices Ltd., (supra) and that of M/s Iron Junction Raipur (supra), the State Counsel do not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the present cases is one which is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid two Judgments. 13. Nonetheless, the State Counsel submits that Judgments of the Division Bench are already under challenge before the Supreme Court vide Diary No. 41100/2022. Though the State Counsel fairly submits that there is no interim order so far as the operation of the order passed by the Division Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
