9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts during the aforesaid period, the assessee was not liable to tax and consequently granted the exemption. This legal ground was clearly reversed by the Supreme Court in the facts of the present case and the transaction where the revisionist had been given a credit note from the manufacturer for replacing spare parts during the period of warranty came within the ambit of sale and amenable to tax. The question herein as to whether the said assessment could have been reopened in light of the aforesaid judgment. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by this Court in the case of M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [ 2016 (12) TMI 630 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held ' a subsequent judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase of Vikram bodies from M/s Hindustan Steel Industries, Lucknow. 3. It is stated that both the aforesaid purchases were tax paid purchases in the State of U.P. and form 3-A was used for purchase of Three Wheeler Chassis or the bodies. The assessment for the year 1999-2000 was completed vide order dated 04.01.2002 and the turnovers of Vikram Three Wheelers and the bodies were duly considered by the assessing authority who after examination of records has recorded a specific findings and granted exemption to the revisionist in this regard. 4. After the assessment was completed on 04.01.2002 a notice was received from Additional Commissioner-I, Trade Tax, Gorakhpur dated 08.12.2005 invoking Sub-Section 2 of Section 21 of the Trade Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before the first appellate authority which was rejected by means of order dated 26.05.2007 and the second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal was also rejected by means of order dated 20.09.2012. Both the authorities had duly considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan(Supra) and held that considering the fact that the petitioner had received a credit note in lieu of spare parts which were replaced during the period of warranty, he was liable to be assessed for tax and accordingly upheld the second assessment order pursuant to the order passed under Section 21(2) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the very re-initiation of proceedings under Section 21(2) is arbitrary a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the matter were duly considered by the Assessing Authority while finalizing the assessment and the judgment in any case would be applicable prospectively and merely on the basis of judgment invocation of provision of Section 21(2) by the respondents is arbitrary. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the question as to whether tax which have been changed during the period of warranty was being considered by the Supreme Court with regard to a matter which has arisen from the State of U.P. and was concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan(Supra) where it was clearly held that in concluding paragraph No. - I where spare parts are removed for which the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Court in the case of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. Ors, 2017 UPTC 63 in paragraph Nos 11, 14 15 has held as under:- 11. Further, a subsequent judgment cannot be used to reopen assessments or disturb past assessments which have been concluded. [See Para 7, Austin Engineering V. JCIT (2009) 312 ITR 70 (Guj.) Para 4 and 5, Bear Shoes 2011 (331) ITR 435 (Mad.), B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd. v. Deputy Director (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttarakhand), Sesa Goa V. JCIT 2007 (294) ITR 101 (Bom.), Geo Miller and Co. 2004 (134) Taxmann 552 (Cal)]. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MEPCO Industries V. CIT, (2010) 1 SCC 434, where the CIT on the basis of a subsequent decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not authorize the Department to reopen the assessment, which stood closed on the basis of the law, as it stood at the relevant time. 15. In view of the above cited verdict and the principle enunciated therein, the reopening of proceedings of completed assessment in question is rendered bad and colourable exercise of power and without jurisdiction. It is also clear that once the assessment has become final, it should not be reopened on the basis of subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that further reassessment have been initiated on the basis of subsequent judgment of the Apex Court which cannot be used to reopen assessment or disturbed to pass asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
