TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, despite more than adequate opportunities, having been extended, the petitioner has placed on record only very limited particulars, that are insufficient to support its stand - There was no detailed description given and importantly, no certificate produced from the clients in support of the petitioners' claim that all materials were supplied only by the clients and it was only the activity of installation that was rendered by it - thus there is nothing perverse in the order impugned, warranting interference. Petition dismissed. - W.P.No.10615 of 2010 And M.P. No.2 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2019 - Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For the Respondents : Mr.V.Haribabu, Additional Government Pleader (T) for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order-in-original dated 29.03.2010 for the period 2005-2006. 2. The petitioner was originally assessed vide proceedings dated 18.03.2008. Thereafter, various defects were noticed in the completion of original proceedings leading to commencement of proceedings for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above difference in the returns and assessment. They have not furnished any details regarding the detailed list of works contract done along with the copies of agreement, work order, nature of work done, etc., In the absence of such details, the eligibility for exemption or otherwise could not be verified. It is therefore proposed to assess the above turnover at 12%. 4) The assessees purchased solid sheet for a value of ₹ 1,43,883.00 against Form XVII declarations from Tvl.Onspect, Guindy. They have not furnished the details of purchase of XVII extract and the details of goods manufactured and sold or used in work contract. In the absence of such details, the correctness of issue of Form XVII could not be verified. It is therefore proposed to levy the difference of tax at 16.85% and penalty at 150% of the difference tax and surcharge due, under Section 23 of the TNGST Act'59. 5) It is therefore proposed to revise the assessment for the year 2005- 06 under the TNGST Act' 59 as detailed below: (i) Liability under Section 3B : ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B Admin Charges 1,60,53,696 C Selling Charges 46,47,931 D Finance Charges 14,45,987 E Depreciation 5,35,091 F Others 1,05,67,156 Total 8,83,25,701 2) Contract Receipts ₹ 10,71,36,999 The sales within Tamil Nadu- ₹ 7,18,04,930 Already assessed under TNGST Act as per your order CST Sales - ₹ 3,53,32,069 Total - ₹ 10,71,36,999 Few copies of Invoices have been enclosed to support our cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y pertained to the activity of installation and would not attract levy of Sales Tax. Work orders, purchase orders, description of work and installation done, Invoices and other supporting documents were called for. 8. Vide letter dated 27.10.2009 the petitioner had requested 10 days time to furnish the details and file objections and a final opportunity was granted till 16.11.2009. A detailed show cause notice dated 10.12.2009 was thereafter issued proposing confirmation of the proposals made. 9. Vide reply dated 19.12.2009, the petitioner raises the following objections: (i) Challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to re-assess on the ground that (i) there is no escapement of tax or turnover to justify the proposed re-assessment and (ii) no material has been gathered after the original order of assessment implying that the present proceedings were a change of opinion, thus impermissible in law. Reliance was placed on the Judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tvl.Krishna Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (140 STC P. 148) and Binani Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on by it which is impermissible in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Assessing Authority, has on the basis of the materials produced, come to a conclusion that the materials are insufficient and do not satisfy the claim of the petitioner. There was no detailed description given and importantly, no certificate produced from the clients in support of the petitioners' claim that all materials were supplied only by the clients and it was only the activity of installation that was rendered by it. I thus see nothing perverse in the order impugned, warranting interference. Reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd V. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others ((2008) 12 VST 371) is futile in this case as, in my view, it would apply only in a matter where the nature of activity carried on is undisputed. The Writ Petition is dismissed granting liberty as stated in paragraph 15 below. Connected Miscellaneous Petition also dismissed. No costs. 15. The Petitioner is permitted, if it so desires, to file statutory Appeal challenging the impugned order of assessment with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
