TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though unsupported no reasons have been attributed for such rejection. The reasoning in the order of assessment is not cast-iron as it should be particularly, in the light of some material that has been produced by the Assessee. It is too well settled a proposition that an order of assessment that casts a substantial liability upon an assessee should contain valid and acceptable reasons for effecting modifications/additions to the returned turnover and should speak for itself, in casting such liability - In the present case, the order of assessment is bereft of such reasoning. Petition remanded for fresh reconsideration. - Writ Petition No.8801 of 2014, M.P.Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2019 - Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr. N.Sriprakash For the Respondent : Mr. V.Haribabu, AGP ORDER The petitioner is a dealer in terms of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short Act ) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (in short CST Act ), engaged in the execution of works contracts. 2. The impugned assessment relates to the period 2010-11 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Tubes 756/5.10.10 668833 100325 769158 30766 Skipper Ltd., Howrah 1013/20.9.10 616500 92475 708975 28359 Skipper Ltd. Howrah 1275/17.11.10 629463 94419 723882 28955 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 1241/4.1.11 1405760 210864 1616624 64665 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 1240/4.1.11 1043200 156480 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9370 71,837 8980 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 24889/2.12.10 100000 15000 1,15,000 14375 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 24888/2.12.10 200000 30000 2,30,000 28750 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 77934/3.1.11 100000 15000 115,000 14375 Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin 55602/20.1.11 150000 22500 1,72,500 21563 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m one State to another is not in dispute. What has to be determined is whether these equipments were owned by the petitiomer and were being deployed in the business of piling and other civil works in different locations/projects or whether they constituted capital assets that were being sold, generating taxable turnover. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the equipment/capital assets constituted its own assets and were being deployed as per requirement at various projects sites. According to it, the movement was occasioned only for this purpose. Two transactions have been picked out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to illustrate this contention, relating to an asset transferred from Simplex Infrastructure, Cochin to its location to Chennai and back and Simplex Infrastructure Cochin to Chennai and onward to an alternate destination. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that various documentary evidences have been produced in support of the position that the equipment had travelled only for the petitioners' own use, such as lorry receipts and statutory Forms evidencing delivery under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules Form JJ ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other materials are available to assist the officer in arriving at a proper conclusion regarding the true purpose abd purport of movement of goods. Thus, while a Form F would, had the same been filed in the CST assessment, support the petitioners stand, the absence of such Form cannot be fatal to the petitioners case if the petitioner is in a position to establish its case otherwise, on the basis of other evidences. The certificate of the Chartered Accountant has been rejected though unsupported no reasons have been attributed for such rejection. 14. The reasoning in the order of assessment is not cast-iron as it should be particularly, in the light of some material that has been produced by the Assessee. It is too well settled a proposition that an order of assessment that casts a substantial liability upon an assessee should contain valid and acceptable reasons for effecting modifications/additions to the returned turnover and should speak for itself, in casting such liability. In the present case, I find the order of assessment bereft of such reasoning. 15. I this set aside the impugned order and allow this writ petition. The petitioner will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
