9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following question of law. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the assessment of turnover by interpreting the petitioner's goods as falling under Entry No.14(iii) of Part D of the First Schedule instead of Entry 13(i) of Part C of the First Schedule resulting in an erroneous interpretation of the legislative intent?" 3.We have heard Mr.B.Sivaraman, learned counsel for M/s.Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 4.The question which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal was correct in reversing the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and holding that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with as electronic systems. 7.The assessee further contended that they are dealers in various parts and accessories of such security/alarm systems which are electronic systems. It is stated that in case of electronic burglar/fire alarm systems, though the system obtain power supply from AC mains, the entire operation is electronic in nature, as these systems are controlled by digital circuitry and even micro processors with software to detect intrusion/fire and give output. Further, it was contended that these systems can interface directly to a telephone line with their built-in widen capability and can dial up various telephone numbers to pass on information. Therefore, it was stated that the electrical and electronic systems are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of goods specified elsewhere in the Schedule in Sl.No.14 of Part D of the First schedule. 10.Further, it is contended that if two constructions are possible with regard to the reading of an entry in the Schedule, the construction which leans in favour of the assessee should be adopted. The first appellate authority agreed with the assessee and allowed the appeal by an order dated 25.07.2005. An identical issue arose in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 and for those assessment years also, the assessee had succeeded before the first appellate authority. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in STA.Nos.273 of 2004 and 294 of 2004. The Tribunal, by an common order dated 24.01.2006 dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emain inconsistent with each other. We are informed that the revenue has not filed any appeal against the order passed in STA.Nos.273 of 2004 and 294 of 2004, dated 24.01.2006. If that is the case, the said decision binds the revenue and judicial discipline requires the revenue to accept the said interpretation even for the assessment year 2002-03. 14.Thus, for the above reasons, we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the assessee and remand the matter to the Tribunal to take note of the decision in the assessee's own case in STA.Nos.273 of 2004 and 294 of 2004, dated 24.01.2006, which has been accepted by the department and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. In the light of the above, the question of law is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
