|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1180 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 630 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment where original assessment is sought to be superseded on the ground that it was erroneous - change of opinion on the basis of subsequent decision, where different view adopted - taxability of sale of mobile phones in the state of Uttar Pradesh - Held that: - How a product is to be taxed, is a matter of intent of the parties. In a composite contract, it depends on what the parties intended to buy and sell. In the facts of the present case, the intention of the parties was to sell the mobile phone alone, and not the mobile charger which was supplied along with the mobile phone in a composite pack.
This writ petition has to be allowed with cost as law is well settled that assessment once having become final should not have been reopened on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court which has no applicability to the facts of this case and is in ignorance of factual position as is very clear from facts narrated herein above - petition allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 629 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - presumptive tax - unaccounted purchases - Evasion of tax - suppression of facts - Section 25(1) of the KVAT - Held that: - primarily Section 25C of the Act will not apply in an instance where the presumptive dealer suppresses his turnover. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that even in an instance where there is suppression of turnover by a presumptive dealer, a Division Bench of this Court in Mooken Devassy & Co., [2016 (12) TMI 463 - KERALA HIGH COURT] observed that if the turnover assessed does not exceed ₹ 60 lakhs, the dealer is entitled for the benefit of payment of presumptive tax. If such a rationale is adopted, the petitioners in the present cases are also entitled for benefit of input tax credit. Section 25C applies only if the assessing authority had denied the eligibility of the dealer to pay presumptive tax for the violation of conditions enumerated in sub section (5) of Section 6. Unless such a finding is made by the assessing authority in the assessment order that the petitioners have violated any of the conditions enumerated in Section 6(5), none of the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 25C. In other words, a finding by the assessing authority that the dealer has violated the conditions in Section 6(5) is a precondition for claiming input tax credit under Section 25C.
Penalty proceedings u/s 22(7) of the Act - Held that: - it is an independent provision in respect of dealers paying tax under Section 6(5) and if it is found that amount of tax if any paid is less than the amount of tax which he is liable to pay, then the assessing authority has jurisdiction to direct the dealer to pay difference of tax between the amount of tax already paid and that fixed in such proceedings together with thrice the amount of such difference as penalty. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get any relief in the above writ petitions.
Petitions disposed off - The assessing Officer is directed to make a fresh assessment giving the benefit of payment of tax at presumptive rate - decided partly in favor of petitioner-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 566 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Prosecution proceedings for Evasion of tax - business of purchase and sale of iron scrap - Quashing of First Information Report being C.R. No.II 382/2008 lodged before Bhavnagar “A” Division Police Station, Bhavnagar - Section 85(2) of the VAT Act, 2003 - Section 409 of Indian Penal Code - Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure - exercise of jurisdiction - Held that: - the Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction and in view of consistent propositions of law on exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the Court is declining to interfere at this stage of the proceedings and therefore, without examining merit or demerit at length of the allegation in the present stage of the proceeding, the petition being devoid of merit, does not call for any interference and accordingly the same is dismissed, at this stage. Rule is discharged.
-
2016 (12) TMI 565 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - non-submissions of forms - Online Form KK - Transporter Form MM - Transporter L.R. - Held that: - the respondent, while passing the impugned order, invoked Section 72(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "TNVAT Act") and demanded double the amount of tax as if, there is an evasion of tax. There is no finding in the compounding notice that the petitioner evaded payment of tax. The only reason for detention of the goods is the petitioner had produced a manual Form KK instead of a computed generated Form KK. The petitioner's explanation, vide representation, dated 20.11.2016 has not been considered nor referred to by the respondent, though it has been acknowledged by the respondent as could be seen from the signature appended to the representation, dated 20.11.2016.
That apart in terms of Section 68 of the TNVAT Act, the owner or person in charge of the goods should carry with them, a Bill of sale or delivery note or such other documents as may be prescribed and Log book relating to the goods transported. Assuming that Form KK cannot be accepted, the other documents which are all import documents could have been considered by the respondent. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold the computation done by the respondent in the compounding notice, dated 18.11.2016 is not tenable - the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of ₹ 50,000/- , the tax calculated by applying the rate of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act at 2% and this Court has fixed the amount of ₹ 50,000/-, which is approximately 2% of the value of the goods, viz., ₹ 20,77,467/-. On payment of the said amount, the vehicle and goods shall be forthwith released - petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 564 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - input tax credit - acceptance of C Forms - principles of natural justice - Held that: - a notice dated 19.08.2016 was issued to the petitioner proposing to reverse the Input Tax Credit as per Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The reason for making such proposal is that the petitioner has not filed the declaration in Form 'C', for a period of three months. The petitioner received the Show-Cause Notice on 06.10.2016. The Show-Cause Notice grants 15 days time to the petitioner to file their objections. However, well before the expiry of 15 days period, the impugned assessment order has been passed on 30.09.2016. It is admitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the impugned assessment order has been passed well before the expiry of 15 days period. This is sufficient to set-aside the impugned order.
One more ground on which the impugned order has to be held bad is on the ground that impugned order proceeds to reverse the Input Tax Credit, on other grounds as well, other than the ground pointed out in the Show Cause Notice, dated 19.08.2016. Therefore, in respect of those issues which are pointed out in the impugned order, the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity. Thus, the impugned order having been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice, calls for interference.
The impugned order is set-aside and the respondent is directed to issue fresh Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner, clearly setting out as to what is the proposal being made against the petitioner. Before doing so, the respondent shall accept the 'C' Forms and verify the same - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - compounding of offences - stock transfer - Form LL - whether the petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 70(2)(b) of the said Act, which states that the seller or consignor or transferor or clearing and forwarding agent of the goods shall deliver or cause to be delivered within the prescribed period, the transit pass to the officer in-charge of the last check post or barrier, before the exit of the goods vehicle from the State? - Held that: - It is not in dispute that the transit pass has been delivered to the officer in charge of the last check post namely Puzhal Out Check Post. It is only thereafter the vehicle has not left the State of Tamil Nadu. Since no untoward incident had taken place in the meantime and since it is admitted that the vehicle was moving with full load as per the invoice, there is no justifiable ground for detaining the vehicle.
The respondent is directed to release the vehicle as well as the goods forthwith and ensure that the vehicle crosses Tamil Nadu border immediately - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Inter state sale or intra state sale - eCommerce transactions - movement of goods - registration of dealer - Whether the retail sale of mobile phones, computer spare parts, personal healthcare products, car accessories, cameras etc., done by the petitioner via the online portal www.flipkart.com would qualify as an inter-state sale or a local sale within the union territory of Puducherry? - Held that: - the purchase order is placed outside the State of Tamil Nadu and the movement of goods has occasioned on account of the purchase. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue, they have clearly admitted that after the customer chooses a particular product, the bill is raised and the identified package is consigned to Puducherry. In the instant case, there can hardly be any doubt, as the revenue has accepted that the purchase order, which is placed outside the State has occasioned the movement of goods.
One more aspect pointed out by the Revenue is with regard to use of incorrect TIN number in the E-Sugam form generated by the petitioner at Karnataka. Admittedly, the form is electronically generated and unless and until all columns are filled, the computer system will not generate the form. The petitioner's explanation is that the furnishing of TIN number is not required. However, the said column cannot be left blank and the movement of goods are to Puducherry, the first three digits of Puducherry code are mentioned and this is no way amounts to suppression. The explanation given by the petitioner is reasonable considering the facts and the nature of transaction done by the petitioner. The consigner and the consignee is the petitioner and the goods moved from State of Karnataka to Puducherry and it is on self basis. The consignment is shown as electronic items, garments etc., stored in several bags. Therefore, mere mention of TIN number by giving only the code of Puducherry as assigned by the Commercial Taxes Department that by itself will not be a ground to state that the petitioner has committed an offence.
The transactions done by the petitioner are inter-state sales and the order impugned in the Writ Petition is not sustainable and liable to be set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 512 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - Wooden Cable Drums - chargeable under sl. No. 169 of Schedule “C” to the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003? - Held that: - The present writ petition is against the revisonal order. The revisional order has to be adjudged on the basis of the materials made available with the revisional authority. At no stage, the petitioner brought to the notice of any of the adjudicating authority up to the revisional authority that, the item is governed by sl. No. 169. At this stage, therefore, I am not in a position to permit the petitioner to argue that, the case of the petitioner is governed by sl. No. 169 and not otherwise. That apart on consideration of serial 169 I accept the contention made on behalf of the respondents that a Wooden Cable Drum cannot come within the description of a Wooden Crate or Box or Tea Chest as enumerated in serial No. 169. A drum cannot be said to be crate or a box or a chest. A wooden drum is not specifically stated in serial no. 169. The items described therein takes colour from each other. On such premises, a wooden drum cannot be said to fall into the items described in serial no. 169. - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 511 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rate of tax - idols and statues made of gold and handicrafts including furniture - taxable at the rate of 4% under Entry No.47 of third schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Entry 41 of the third schedule of the Act in the previous Advance ruling given under Section 60 of the KVAT Act, 2003 or taxable at the rate of 14% under Section 4(1)(b) of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not deserve to be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same does not assign any reasons worth the name. A quasi-judicial order without any reason cannot be sustained in law. The writ petitions are therefore allowed and setting aside the impugned order Annexure C dated 21/03/2012, the matter is restored back to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for passing fresh orders with detailed reasons and referring to the previous record of the case and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-assessee. Till the Commissioner passes such orders afresh, the further proceedings against the petitioner- assessee in pursuance of the Annexure F notices shall remain stayed - The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is expected to pass appropriate orders upon this remand, within a period of three months from today - petitions disposed off by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 510 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Partial rejection of the petitioner's applications for refund of the input tax credit for the period from July 2015 to June 2016 - wastage under Section 19(9) of the TNVAT Act - the respondent adopted a percentage of 5% and 1% respectively - Held that: - to ascertain as to whether there are quantum of loss of goods, which were purchased, on which, tax was paid, the Assessing Officer has to conduct an exercise, by which, he has to ascertain as to what would be the loss and uniform or ad hoc percentage cannot be adopted. To do so, it would be necessary for the Assessing Officer to conduct an inspection of the place of business of the petitioner to acquaint himself with the manufacturing process. However, since the respondent has adopted a uniform percentage, the same calls for interference.
With regard to the second issue wherein the respondent rejected the claim for input tax credit on certain purchases effected on the ground that the commodities were not exported is concerned, the petitioner's case is that those products are used in the manufacture of other goods, which are exported, as specified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the State Act and they are entitled to avail the input tax credit. However, the petitioner had no opportunity to put forth their objections on the above head.
The last issue is with regard to the rejection of the claim for refund of input tax credit on capital goods. The respondent has not assigned any specific reasons for rejection, but stated that the claim is in dispute. The nature of the dispute has not been spelt out in the impugned order. That apart, the petitioner did not have any opportunity to put forth their objections. Therefore, the findings rendered by the respondent on all the above three heads call for interference.
The writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the findings of the respondent on the above three heads and the respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner on all the above three heads. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall file their objections and on receipt of the objections, the respondent shall cause an inspection of the petitioner's factory to acquaint himself regarding the manufacturing process so as to enable him to ascertain the invisible loss and the visible loss and thereafter, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, redo the assessment on the above three heads by passing a speaking order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 467 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund claim - pre-audit - revisional jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution - Held that: - it cannot be said that respondent has issued show cause notice to take order dated 07.07.2016 under suo motu revision has no jurisdiction at all and / or considering the provision of statute, it cannot be said that there is total lack of jurisdiction and the petitioners have yet to reply to the show cause notice and ample opportunity shall be available to the petitioners to represent their case and / or making submission before the revisional authority, we are of the opinion that present petition which is at the stage of show cause notice may not entertained and the petitioners may be relegated to reply to the show cause notice and participate in the revisional proceedings. It will always be open for the petitioners to make submission before the Revisional Authority and in reply to the show cause notice that there is no factual foundation to take order dated 07.07.2016 under suo motu revision and / or grounds stated in the show cause notice are not tenable and the revisional authority bound to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no exceptional case is made out to interefere with the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the show cause notice - present petition not entertainable - The petitioners are relegated to file reply to the show cause notice and participate in the revisional proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revisional Authority is directed to decide and dispose of revision (suo motu revision) against the orde dated 07.07.2016 within the perod of two months from the date of filing of the reply to the show cause notice by the petitioners, however after observing principles of natural justice and giving fullest opportunity to the petitioners - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 466 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Levy of VAT - nature of activity - activity is in the nature of sale of goods or providing services - petitioner has only agreed to sell the dredger after completion of the construction. - in respect of the receipts for carrying out various services, petitioner had paid service tax as evident from Exts.P2 and P3, VAT to be levied or not - non-application of mind - Held that: - The petitioner has a case that they have been subjected to double taxation by calling upon them to pay service tax also. There is no dispute regarding the proposition as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale tax and service tax are to be charged depending upon the nature of transaction and in their respective parameters. But, the question is how it has to be differentiated and which part of it can be assessed to tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and which part could be assessed tax under the Service Tax Act. This is a matter which requires enquiry and I don't think that this Court will be justified in considering such issues at this stage of proceedings when the matter is still at large. - Petition dismissed for want of alternate remedy.
-
2016 (12) TMI 465 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benefit of Form ST-1 - Did the Appellate Tribunal fall into error in holding that the ST-1 forms used by the assessee were invalid and therefore could not be the basis of any benefit? - Held that: - From a combined reading of the Form and the Rules, it is quite evident that the declaration per se does not contain any provision limiting the date or dates or time period for which it is valid. All that proviso to Rule 7(1) of the Rules requires is that if transactions are concerned with the delivery of goods spreading over different years, it is necessary to furnish a separate declaration in respect of goods delivered in each year. We fail to understand how this provision would come to the aid of the Revenue in the circumstances of the case. The Form concededly was issued in August, 1994; there was absolutely no authority or warrant for the Revenue to stamp on it “1994-95”, to denote its validity, given that the circular was issued much later on 23.06.1995. The so-called validity of the Form, therefore, could not have bound either the selling or the purchasing dealer in the circumstances of this case
It is further reaffirmed by Rule 8(9) of the Rules which specifically states that a registered dealer is bound to surrender to the appropriate Assessing Authority all unused declaration forms remaining in hand upon cancellation of his certificate. Thus, Forms once issued per se have validity in terms of the Rules.
The rejection of the Forms in the present case and claiming deduction on the basis thereof for the sale of PVC resins at ₹ 9,25,52,964/- was contrary to law. The findings of the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Authorities below are accordingly reversed. Appropriate relief shall be given to the dealer - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 464 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - welded wire mesh - falls under commodity code 2041 or under code 301? - Held that: - taking note of the fact that the clarification dated 10.7.2007 is said to have been followed by the other Assessing Officers, this Court is of the view that while dismissing the writ petitions at the very threshold, to meet the ends of justice and at the same time, protect the interest of the Revenue, the petitioners are granted liberty to move the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes seeking clarification as regards the rate of tax payable on the sale of the product manufactured by them namely welded wire mesh - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 463 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Rate of tax - Petitioner being a presumptive tax dealer is liable to pay only tax @ 0.5% on the turnover if the turnover is less than 60 lakhs. However, the assessment is made by charging tax @13.5% - Held that: - Perusal of Ext.P3 order would indicate that the assessing officer had taken such a view on the following facts (1) The dealer has produced only photo copy of 4 invoice along with the reply. He has not produced the originals for verification since he claim that the purchase was made by their associate concerns Mookken Devassy, Palarivattom; (2) On verification of the photo copies of the invoice produced the means of transport (vehicle no.) were not endorsed in invoice. Accordingly the photo copy of the bill is seemed to be not genuine. Particularly the transport as per the documents were commenced from Muvattupuzha to Palarivattom in a distance of 30 kilometer and the journey to be performed in a carrier vehicle.
When such a view had been taken by the assessing authority, I do not think that this Court will be justified in considering the claim made by the petitioner on merits. Petitioner will have to challenge the aforesaid findings in a properly constituted appeal. Hence, I do not think that this Court is justified in interfering with the matter bypassing the appellate remedy available to the petitioner - petition allowed - petitioner allowed to prefer an appeal.
-
2016 (12) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Benefit of composition scheme - whether it is justified to hold that the benefit of Composition Scheme under Section 15 (1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, cannot be denied on the ground that certain capital goods were purchased by the petitioner-assessee, which were not “goods-in-stock”? - the petitioner-assessee, running a Restaurant purchased certain Vetrified Tiles to be fixed on the floor of the Restaurant - Held that: - Since in the present case, the first appeal of the petitioner-assessee has been disposed of against the assessee and the second appeal before the Tribunal under Section 63 of the Act has not yet been filed, the petitioner-assessee is relegated to the alternative remedy before the said Tribunal and if such appeal is filed before the Tribunal within fifteen days from today, the same shall be considered on merits without objection as to the limitation by the said Tribunal in accordance with the aforesaid order of this Court. If, however, the Department can produce before the Tribunal the proof of the aforesaid judgment being stayed by any superior Court, they will be entitled to proceed further in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (12) TMI 425 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 - maintainability of appeal - effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - The narrow parameters for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the appeal remedy available to the petitioner have to be very strictly construed. The contingencies like, question of validity and vires of the relevant statute or Rules or Notifications is involved, whether the assessee concerned has been saddled with the financial liability without any sort of opportunity of hearing given to him, is not to be lightly invoked in all such cases merely on the basis of the allegations and averments made in the writ petitions.
The contentions raised before this Court in the present case, could all have been raised before the Appellate Authorities without any doubt. For the reasons best known to the petitioner- assessee, the petitioner-assessee ignored and bypassed these remedies. The writ jurisdiction in such circumstances cannot be allowed even to overcome the lapse of the limitation for the petitioner-assessee at this belated stage.
Petition not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 424 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Notifications dated 17.06.2002 and 12.09.2002 (Annexures P-17 and P-20) be treated as inoperative qua the petitioner-Company on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and that the respondent –State of Punjab be restrained from going back on its promise of providing sales-tax exemption to the petitioner Company as per the Industrial Policy, 1996 and subsequent notifications - Held that: - the petitioner had made substantial progress towards completion of the project before the issuance of the notification dated 17.6.2002 and the amendment dated 12.9.2002 to the Deferment & Exemption Rules, 1991. This is further evidenced by the fact that it was able to commence production within a short period after these notifications i.e., on 21.10.2002, and within four months of 30.06.2002, the date specified in these notifications - In these circumstances, in our view, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is right in urging that as the petitioner had irretrievably altered its position in pursuance of the promise of the Government and made substantial investment before the issuance of the later notifications, they could not operate to its detriment and it could not be denied the promised benefit.
The petition deserves to succeed. We do not find any merit in the arguments on behalf of the State in justification of the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, namely the consensus at the Empowered Committee of State Finance Minister or that the State has the liberty to withdraw the promised incentive at any time. Nor, on the facts as they have emerged, is it possible to agree with the Ld. State Counsel the the petitioner has been lax or took no timely steps in proceeding to set up the unit - petition allowed.
It is held and declared that the petitioner company would be entitled to the benefit of sales tax exemption as per the Industrial Policy 1996, Incentives Code, 1996 and the notification dated 30.4.2000 on the ground of promissory estoppel and the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner on the basis of the subsequent notifications dated 17.6.2002 and 12.9.2002. - The letters dated 24.9.2002 and 04.12.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for sales tax exemption are quashed - The respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of sales tax exemption as per the Industrial Policy 1996, Incentives Code, 1996 and the notification dated 30.4.2000.
-
2016 (12) TMI 423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of the act - since petitioner is selling timber under Section 5(2) of the CST Act 56, they are not liable for taxation under the TNVAT Act and the petitioner also sells the timber locally taxable @ 14.5% under the said provision - Held that: - in the light of the circular coupled with the fact the order came to be passed without furnishing the copy of the web-report, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/ petitioner need not avail alternative remedy. The third respondent has placed reliance upon the web- report, but, without furnishing a copy of the same to the appellant/petitioner and arrived at the decision and passed the impugned order and therefore, on this short ground, the impugned order which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition warrants interference.
Writ Petition allowed and the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the third respondent as well as the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P(MD).No.22745 of 2015 are set aside and the matter is once again remanded to the third respondent who shall follow the above cited statutory provisions as well as the Circular and pass appropriate orders.
-
2016 (12) TMI 422 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of sale tax - Sale of Aircraft (Asset) - three joint owners of asset - as per the memorandum of agreement dated 15.03.2011 between the parties for exit of the petitioner from the joint venture agreed to transfer, assign and relinquish of their share of 33.33% aggregating to 66 2/3% in the joint venture to M/s.Madras Cements Ltd., with equal shares - whether it was sale transaction and is liable to be taxed or merely relinquishment/release of the share in the joint venture and therefore cannot be taxed?
Held that: - The petitioner's case is that the transaction will not fall within the scope of the expression 'sale' as defined in Section 2(33) of the TNVAT Act. Thus, the factual averments set out by the petitioner has to be examined by the respondent. For doing so, it is necessary that the joint venture agreement dated 10.09.2003, memorandum of agreement dated 15.03.2011 and other related documents should be gone into to interpret the intentions of the parties. Having failed to do so would render the findings recorded by the respondent in the impugned order as not tenable. In the counter affidavit, the grounds raised by the petitioner having not been met rather the counter affidavit is the re-presentation of the impugned assessment order.
The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall take note of the observations made this order and re-do the assessment under the said head in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
........
|
