TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is clearly a non-speaking order, as the material contention has been totally ignored by the respondent No.1. Since the impugned order is a non-speaking one, this Court has no other option, except to set aside the said impugned order, and to remand the case back to the respondent No.1 with a direction to decide the issue - petition allowed by way of remand. - WRIT PETITION No.5941 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2020 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. L. Ravi Chander Senior Counsel for Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Govind Reddy GP for Commercial Tax Order: (Per the Hon ble the Chief Justice Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Private Limited at Hyderabad. Although the delivery was to be made at Mancherial, but due to an inadvertent mistake, the address for delivery of the Excavator was shown as the Hyderabad address instead of the Mancherial address. Moreover, according to the petitioner, the challan clearly showed that the consignment was meant only for demo approval . Having loaded the machine on two different vehicles due to the weight load, the machinery left Pune, and was scheduled to be delivered at Mancherial. However, as there was the inadvertent mistake of showing the Hyderabad address, in the bill of ship, the same mistake also occurred in the e-way bill. But, the driver was instructed to proceed to Mancherial, because the destination of the machi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter III of the said Act. Section 7 of the Act does not include any transaction where the goods are being sent for the purpose of demonstration . Secondly, according to the Frequently Asked Questions, which have been answered by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the goods sent on a returnable basis are not covered under the supply of goods . Since the present consignment was sent on a returnable basis, as it was sent for the purpose of merely demonstration, therefore, according to the answer given by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the said goods were not taxable. Thirdly, since the taxable event had not even occurred, the question of the petitioner having to pay any tax on the transfer of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and considered the record submitted by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner had, indeed, raised the issue of the tax liability on the said transaction. According to the petitioner, the tax liability had not even arisen. Since there was no taxable event, which had occurred, the question of having to pay the tax would not arise. Despite the fact that the said contention was raised by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has failed to deal with the said contention. Moreover, the respondent No.1 has not even assigned any reason for ignoring the said contention. Therefore, the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
