TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25/-, being the interest purchase of building materials, were wrongly allowed exemption, the said notice does not disclose as to what materials found in the assessment records had driven the Assessing Officer to make such proposal for disallowing the exemption. The reasons given for disallowing exemption, would show that such reasonings were not referred in the form of proposal, when notice was issued on 11.06.2008 - the assessee cannot be put to surprise with certain reasons in the assessment order, when crux of such reasons, in the form of grounds, is not stated in the notice of proposal. At the same time, at this stage, this Court is not expressing any view on the correctness or otherwise of the reasons assigned by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he second respondent passed the impugned order on 03.11.2008, disallowing the exemption already granted in the original order of assessment in respect of inter state purchase of building materials. Thus, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order revising the assessment cannot be sustained on more than one reason. His first contention is that when there is no escapement of assessment, question of revision the assessment does not arise. His second contention is that the impugned order referred to various reasons for disallowing the exemption, which are not put to notice to the petitioner, when the notice of proposal dated 11.06.2008 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd such claim was, in fact, accepted by the Assessing Officer, while passing the order of assessment on 15.11.2006. There is a clear finding rendered by the Assessing Officer that the purchases of building materials effected in interstate sale was verified with purchase bills and allowed exemption under Section 3B(2)(b). It is also further referred in the original assessment order that the claim of exemption towards interstate purchases of building materials for ₹ 1,80,16,025/- and Iron and Steel (Declared Goods) for ₹ 14,19,34,312/- were verified with relevant documents and found admissible. Having found so, the Assessing Officer has chosen to revise the assessment by issuing the notice of proposal dated 11.06.2008. 7. A car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abling the states to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract in the course of interstate trade or commerce also. Therefore the decision relied on by the assessees (88 STC 204) is not applicable from the year 2002-03. The goods in question are general in nature and are readily available to any buyer and can be used by any dealer. It cannot be established that the goods are usable only to a particular contract and will not be fit for other works. 9. Perusal of the above said findings rendered by the Assessing Officer would show that such reasonings were not referred in the form of proposal, when notice was issued on 11.06.2008. Needless to say that a reasoning in the order of assessment s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
