9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered under Companies Act and is engaged in the business of providing Direct to Home broadcasting services (DTH service, for short). It has operations in the State of Tripura. In order to provide such services to the customers, the petitioner provides free of cost certain equipments such as, Set Top Box, Smart Card, Low Noise Booster, Antenna, Cable, Connector, Clip & tie etc. described under one umbrella expression of "Customer Premises Equipments" (CPE, for short). Petitioner contends that for providing such equipments no charge is collected from the subscriber. The petitioner continues to be the owner of the goods. Under the circumstances, according to the petitioner, the State authorities cannot collect value added tax on such equipmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We notice that the issues involved in the present petition are squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Bharti Telemedia Ltd. (supra). The question involved in the said petition was with respect to inviting value added tax on the goods provided by a DTH provider to its customer so that the customer could enjoy such service. It is also a case where concededly there was no sale of goods. Nevertheless the High Court referring to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another vrs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 1 invoked the principle of transfer of right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months he will have to pay for repair or replacement of the same. We are of the considered view that this amounts to transfer of the right to use goods." 4. The issue involved in the present petition is thus covered by the judgment in case of Bharti Telemedia Ltd. (supra). We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the revisional order insofar as it pertains to the liability of the petitioner to pay tax with interest. However, in relation to penalty we find that the authorities have committed a serious error. Firstly, contrary to what the revisional authority has recorded in the impugned order, sufficient opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner before imposing penalty by the Assessing Officer. We say so because in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
