TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration is unnecessary. Also a fresh allegation is made that the application made by the petitioner is only under Section 7(1) and not under Section 7 (1) & (2) of the CST Act. Not only there is non-consideration of the contentions, but also an allegation which was not put to the petitioner is relied on. These reasons render Ext.P5 vitiated and need to be set aside - first respondent directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and pass orders on Ext.P3 - in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C)No.20535 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2012 - MR. ANTONY DOMINIC J. PETITIONER (S): BY ADVS. SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT. MEERA V.MENON, SRI. MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAIJI RAJ JU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dity dealt with by you. In the circumstances, the application of R.C. under VAT CST Act, filed by you is hereby proposed for rejected as provided for rule 17(16) and 17(18)(vii). 2. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 reply, where it was stated thus: Besides, in your notice it is not mentioned what is the minimum extent of the premises required for granting registration. In this regard we may also submit that the question of storing the Live Chicken at our business place does not arise at all, as whatever the purchase consignment arrived would be diverted/transshipped as our sale to the destinations of our buyers then and there without unloading at our business place. The second reason stated in your above notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e chicken to the neighboring states, where in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. This item of goods is non-taxable and as such they would not case to purchase the intended goods by paying CST from the applicant, as the goods to be dealt with by the applicant is taxable Item. If the applicant indents to effect purchase the goods from inter-state, be would have to remit Advance tax at the boarder Check Post and sells the goods inter-state, there could nothing to be concerned regarding loss of revenue to the state. But the applicant intentionally filed application for CST registration U/s 7(1) only, revealing the willful attempt to do business in an item which is high evasion prone. Moreover, it it also to be noted that in his reply, the applicant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion about the allegation regarding the inadequacy of the storage space mentioned in Ext.P3. Moreover, the petitioner's contention that he proposes to sell live chicken to dealers in Mahi, is also not dealt with in Ext.P5. On the other hand, it is re-iterated in Ext.P5 that since sale is proposed to be effected to dealers in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu where live chicken is a non-taxable item, first respondent again says that registration is unnecessary. In Ext.P5, he has also made a fresh allegation that the application made by the petitioner is only under Section 7(1) and not under Section 7 (1) (2) of the Act. 6. Evidently, therefore, in Ext.P5, the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 are not dealt with or answered. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
