9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otels (Restaurant), No.144-A, Coimbatore Road, Pollachi. The petitioner has filed W.P.Nos.26512 of 2014 to 26514 of 2014, challenging the orders of assessment for the years 2009-2010; 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 dated 02.07.2014 and the petitioner has also filed Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.10257 to 10261 of 2015, challenging the orders of assessments for the years 2009-2010; 2010-2011, 2011-2012; 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 dated 17.03.2015. 3. In fact, the Writ Petitions filed in 2014, which were the earlier cases were entertained by this Court and an order of interim stay was granted on 25.09.2014. The respondent without filing a counter affidavit in the Writ Petitions and seeking for vacating the interim order, once again passed fresh orders of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the petitioner, they further stated that the assessment for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 were re-opened on the same grounds and on an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Pollachi, the same were set aside in A.P.Nos.151 and 152 of 2005 dated 26.10.2005. The appeals filed by the Department before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 11/06 and 12/06 were dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2014. Therefore, it was contended that there was no case for assessing the petitioner to tax at 14.5%. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner viz.Sakthi Hotels (Restaurant), is a separate firm, registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the firm is carrying on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. That apart, the Assessing Officer was solely guided by the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, which could not have been straight away admitted by the Assessing Officer, since he is an Adjudicating Authority and he has to independently consider the same and failure to do so amounts to abdication of the powers of the Assessing Officer. 8. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the reasons assigned by the Sales Appellate Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation which was on identical grounds and the Tribunal rejected the contentions raised by the respondent and the operative portion of the order reads as follows: "7.We have considered the same and we have also perused the assessment records produced before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declined to accept the contention of Revenue to sustain the levy of tax made on the dealer-respondents restaurant in respect of the above said assessment years. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has not raised any new grounds. It is only related to the restaurant attached to the hotel (Lodging House) which is registered under the Tourism Department is coming under scope and ambit of Entry No.20/29 of part-of First Schedule. The contention of the Revenue is not acceptable because the Revenue has not proved with records that the dealer-respondents restaurant is registered with the Tourism Department of either State Government or Central Government and accredited with stage category in order to levy higher rate of tax as per the entries p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
