9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The applications are disposed off. W.P.(C) No. 1757/2017 & CM No.7804/2017, W.P.(C) No. 1758/2017 & CM No.7806/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1803/2017 & CM No.8004/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1804/2017 & CM No.8006/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1805/2017 & CM No.8008/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1806/2017 & CM No.8010/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1807/2017 & CM No.8012/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1808/2017 & CM No.8014/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1809/2017 & CM No.8016/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1810/2017 & CM No.8018/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1811/2017 & CM No.8020/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1812/2017 & CM No.8022/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1813/2017 & CM No.8024/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1814/2017 & CM No.8026/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1815/2017 & CM No.8028/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1816/2017 & CM No.8030/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1817/2017 & CM No.8032/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1818/2017 & CM No.8034/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1819/2017 & CM No.8036/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1820/2017 & CM No.8038/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1821/2017 & CM No.8040/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1822/2017 & CM No.8042/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1823/2017 & CM No.8044/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1824/2017 & CM No.8046/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1825/2017 & CM No.8048/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1826/2017 & CM No.8050/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1827/2017 & CM No.8052/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1828/2017 & CM No.8054/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1829/2017 & CM No.8056/2017 W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions made by the petitioner/appellant inter alia recording as follows:- "11. It is noteworthy that the items supplied by the objector against these three companies are such which are not consumer specific and specifications could be common to many other operators involved into similar business. Perusal of the contract documents also indicates that the responsibility of the supplier was extended upto fabrication, installation and operationalization of equipments. In case of any damage or loss of property the supplier has been made responsible. The Ld. Assessing Authority has rightly held that the items were handed over to the beneficiary at site after installation and commissioning. The clauses for inspection are quite different from the provisions made in case of DMRC. The list of suppliers as provided by DMRC in cited case has not been shown in respect of other three contractee organizations. It has been noted that the items supplied are not such that only the contractee organizations could have utilized and thus there was feasibility for diversion. It is further added that in the case of DMRC drawings & certification were provided by DMRC in respect of their purchases. No s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract. Section 3(b) of the CST Act provides for passing of property in goods by transfer of document of title of the goods while the goods are in transit from one state to another, unless the property in goods passes by transfer of document of title to the goods, provisions of section 3(b) cannot be applied. The conditions are not satisfied in this case. In view of the above the rejection of exemption by the AA is upheld on this account." 7. The petitioners' appeals to the DVAT Tribunal are pending. However, in its applications for waiver of the pre-deposit condition which is premised upon the Division Bench's ruling of this Court - and which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax Vs. ABB Limited (2016) 6 SCC 791, the Tribunal held that the matter required closer examination and on that premise granted relief to the extent that the petitioner was permitted to deposit 20% of the tax and interest demand and 10% of the penalty amount - the aggregate of which works out to Rs. 2.91 crores in all these cases. The DVAT Tribunal prima facie observed as follows:- "23. After hearing both the counsel we have considered the record of the case including the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. The petitioner had entered into contracts with DMRC in the previous reported decision. 9. Counsel for the revenue on the other hand argued that there are important differences in the nature of the transactions and the scope of the contracts. He highlighted the observations of the OHA that the goods can well be used for purposes other than they were contracted for by the petitioner on the one hand and its customer's i.e. L & T (on behalf of DIAL), BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and NDPL. In these circumstances, the DVAT Tribunal acted within jurisdiction while directing deposit of a portion of the tax liability. Learned counsel highlighted that substantial relief has been given to the petitioner by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that a substantial amount involved (i.e. Rs. 8,00,00,000/-) is in respect of high seas sales, which were never the subject of the Division Bench's ruling, that was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. 10. This Court has considered the submissions. The Supreme Court in ABB Limited (supra) noted nature of the transaction between the petitioners. The relevant portion of the same is as under:- "17. The aforesaid conclusion leading to ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
