TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) are preferred by the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the impugned orders. In this regard, the petitioner can have recourse to, if not Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, surely, to the principles analogous to the said provision - Section 14 of the 1963 Act, applies to quasi judicial authorities. The writ petitions dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned statutory authority by way of the remedy available under the statute - decided against petitioner. - W.P. Nos. 41443 to 41445 of 2016 and W.M.P. Nos. 35420 to 35428 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Sri Prakash, Mr.C.Bakthasiromoni For the Respondent : Mr. Kanmani Annamalai, AGP ORDER 1. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have to design, engineering, procurement construction and installation of d] Crude oil tank, farm and associated facilities. e] Intermediate and finished product tankings. f] Interconnecting pipelines wtihin the specified battery limits formation of roads and drainages. ..... 3.5. A perusal of the terms of the agreement would show that it enabled NOCL, in effect, to store the crude oil imported by it, for a period of 20 years. The agreement, apparently, involves, I am told by the counsel for the petitioner, receipt of compensation for the value of the terminal, based on the period for which, the agreement survives. Thus, if, the agreement survives the entire period of 20 years, no compensation is payable, towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion that the agreement executed between the petitioner and NOCL is in the nature of works contract. The reasoning given in that behalf is common to all three impugned orders, and therefore, for the sake of convenience, I am taking the liberty of extracting the reasoning given, in one of the orders, which is, as in the case of other two orders, dated 18.07.2016, and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. ..... 1. The dealers in their application for registration as a dealer in Col.4. against the commodities dealt/to be dealt, they have furnished as works contract. 2. For the works contract activities, the dealers have got registration under TNVAT Act 2006. In the contract, the assessees had purchased and supplied the goods t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement. After issue of notice, the dealers have decided to reverse the claim of ITC in their letter dated 24.2.2015. After the detection by the department, the dealers have come to this conclusion to reverse the amount. The dealers have stated that they have reversed the claim of ITC in the returns for the month of February 2015. Finally they have requested to drop the proposal in the notice dated 03.10.2014. On the basis of the above discussions, the objection filed is overruled and the proposal is confirmed. ..... 6. The Revenue, which is represented by Mr.Kanmani Annamalai contends that, if, the definition of the dealer , as contained in Section 2(15), and that, of works contract as adverted to in Section 2(43) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned orders, the first respondent has ruled otherwise. 9. As correctly argued by Mr.Annamalai, since, there is a dispute with regard to facts, an exercise to ascertain the correct facts may have to be undertaken. The appellate authority is the authority, which can deal with both, facts and law, in the first instance. Therefore, in my view, the appropriate forum would be the appellate authority, where the issues raised in the captioned writ petitions can be agitated by the petitioner. However, given the fact that the petitioner approached this Court, in the first instance, instead of the appellate authority, I have put to Mr.Annamalai as to whether, the Revenue would oppose the appeal, if, preferred by the petitioner on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax, cannot be accepted. In my opinion, the appeal(s), if, filed, can only be entertained, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The submission that the petitioner has no money to make over a deposit towards tax can be no answer, as it should, to my mind, either find the resources, or else have itself declared insolvent. 10.5. Clearly, in so far as the pre-deposit of tax is concerned, the writ court may not be able to come to the aid of the petitioner. See observations of the Supreme Court in : Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (2010) 4 SCC 772, in paragraph 31 at page 781. 11. Resultantly, the pending Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed. There sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
