9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BIAR AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. For the Petitioner : By Government Pleader Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran. For the Respondent : By Advs. Shri. Philip J. Vettickattu, Smt. Sajitha George. ORDER PER DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. As all these OT Revision petitions involve a common issue pertaining to the eligibility of the respondent assessee for the benefit of the concession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks contracts. Finding that this dis-entitled the assessee to claim the concessional rate of 4% under Section 8 (a) (ii) of the KVAT Act and that the assessee was liable to pay tax at the rate of 7% in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (i) of the KVAT Act, the assessing authority completed the assessment by directing the assessee to pay tax at the rate of 7% on the contract value. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee and verifying the material produced to show that the imported items had since been returned without incorporating any part of it in the works contracts undertaken for the assessment year 2015-16, found that the conditions required for attracting the higher rate of tax of 7% under Section 8 (a) (i) of the KVAT Act were not satisfied in the instant case. The Appellate Tribunal therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re returned to the supplier? 5. We have heard Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri. Philip Vettickattu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that while it may be a fact that in the absence of any material to suggest the actual return of the imported goods, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the instant case where the assessee did not hold a CST registration during the assessment year in question, and further, had returned the imported goods to the supplier without incorporating any part of it in the works contracts undertaken during the said year. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. These OT. Revision petitions are thus dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
