TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. Further, without producing the ‘dealership agreement’, the case of Sai Services Station Ltd. was compared to the present case. Without ‘dealership agreement’ entered into by appellant and M/s Maruthi and without examining the terms and conditions of the agreement, vis-`-vis agreement of Sai Services Station Ltd. it would not be possible to come to a conclusion that the issue involved in the present case is similar to that of Sai Services Station Ltd. as claimed by the appellant now. We do not understand what purpose it would serve since the appellant had enough time to report compliance of the order. In the result, none of the applications deserves consideration. In fact, the appellant bombarded the Tribunal with four misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 27381/2013 which was received on 03.7.2013, the petitioner sought stay of operation of the stay order passed by the Tribunal till disposal of application for modification and it was on the basis of oral pronouncement of the judgment and also a supplementary petition submitted by them subsequently. 3.3. In the misc. application No. 27382/2013 received on the same date (03.7.13), it was submitted that appellant had filed misc. application on 30.5.2013 which was based on oral pronouncement of the stay order. Since the order was received on 24.6.2013, another petition for modification of stay order was submitted. In this petition, the appellant submitted that the purchase price benefit received by the petitioner is a State matter and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant did not produce dealership agreement nor any submissions were made with regard to the relied upon decisions. Further, the order was dictated in the open court and both sides were present. No objection nor any point was made during the dictation of the order nor after the dictation about any omissions or commissions in the order. The decisions in the case of Tata Motor Insurance Service Ltd. and Uttam Toyota, the appellant simply stated that they were similar to the present case whereas, based on the submissions made by then Authorised Representative, the Tribunal differentiated the decisions and came to the conclusion that those decisions cannot be applied to the present case. It was also submitted by the AR that in the agreement, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing of stay petition, whether appellant has made out a prima facie case or not which has not been found in this case. 7.2. As regards, the authority of the State or the Central Government on the issue of levy of tax, this Tribunal is not the right forum to decide this issue and, therefore, we are unable to consider the misc. application raising this issue. 7.3. We also take note of the fact that a copy of the dealership agreement was filed after the stay order was passed by this Tribunal and the misc. application was received by the Registry on 30.5.2013. Further, in one of the applications, appellant sought stay of our stay order. We do not understand what purpose it would serve since the appellant had enough time to report comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
