TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent : Mr. V. Sreenidhi, AGA ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in hand is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Anantha Padmanabha Bhat Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others in Writ Petition Nos.54356-357/2015(T-RES), decided on 03/06/2016 (Manupatra MANU/KA/1554/2016), on the issue that the benefit of Compositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department. These Rules do not intend to cover the goods purchased for construction or being material to be fixed in the building premises of the assessee like the Vitrified Tiles in the present case. In the present case, the Tiles purchased from the State of Gujarat on payment of Central Sales Tax and fixed in the floor of the Restaurant in question, cannot be said to be goods in stock while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court, the respondent assessing authority has misused his power under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act for reassessment of the assessee in the present case on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order, such impugned order and the notice itself deserve to be quashed by this Court in exercise of writ j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
