9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. 2. The delay condonation application is allowed. Re: Order on Revision 1. The present revision has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 16.7.2018 in Second Appeal No. 85/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and annulled the assessment order dated 09.10.2017. 2. Undisputedly, the assessee is a Trust. It claims to have established a medical college and hospital for the purpose of pursuing its charitable activities. It is the activity of construction of the hospital which has given rise to the disputed tax liability, inasmuch as, though the assessee claims that the hospital was constructed by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding Counsel and Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee. 6. The present revision has been preferred on the following question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the amount of tax levied u/s 28(2) of the Value Added Tax Act on the purchases and sales made from unregistered dealers?" 7. Learned Standing Counsel would submit, the First Appeal Authority had not decided the issue on facts and left all questions open to be considered in the remand proceedings, the assessment order dated 9.10.2017 being wholly exparte, it had been made open to the assessee to raise all pleas in the remand proceedings. In such facts, the Tribunal, as a Secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly disclosed to the Assessing Officer the factum of execution of civil works through a contractor and that the assessee had not made any purchase of goods from any unregistered dealer as may have exposed the assessee to taxation with respect to such purchases. He has relied on certain portions of the assessment order to bolster his submissions. Also, it is his submission that though it had been pleaded before the Assessing Authority that the assessee was an educational institution and, therefore, not a dealer under Section 2(h) of the Act, that plea was not considered by the Assessing Authority. The said plea was wrongly decided by the First Appeal Authority and, therefore, the Tribunal has not erred in reaching the conclusion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
