TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n practically the first date fixed in the proceedings, after the Tribunal reopened post lockdown enforced due to spread of the pandemic Covid-19 - The ex-parte nature of the order apart, at present, it does stand out that the Tribunal has taken two divergent views in the case of the assessee itself, inasmuch as, in the earlier order, the Tribunal had clearly opined that the goods that have been dealt with by the assessee are not taxable under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, whereas in the appeal giving rise to the present revision, a contrary view has been taken. While taking a such contrary view, the Tribunal has not considered the earlier adjudication made by it, which adjudication had become necessary in light of the earlier decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following observations: 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, as a general principle/rule, it cannot be denied that certain electronic goods may qualify as electronic machinery as understood by the men who deal in the same. However, that rule or principle may not be sufficient or decisive. What is required to be examined is whether in the facts of the present case, all the commodities that the assessee disclosed to have dealt in being electronic goods, computer goods, generators, telecommunication parts, SMPS Power Plant, electrical goods, telecom equipment and SIM cards etc., were such as may be described as electronic machinery and therefore, machinery. 11. It has completely remained fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to examine whether on such distinction under the VAT Act, the commodity would continue to remain taxable as machinery under the Entry Tax Act or it would cease to be taxable on that reasoning. 13. At present, though the Tribunal has touched this issue but its findings are not reasoned. The issue that has been canvased by the assessee in the present revision, has not been squarely dealt with. In any case, since the matter is proposed to be remitted to the Tribunal, the same may be re-adjudicated. 14. As to the alternative submission advanced by the counsel for the revisionist-assessee, again there is no discussion by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 15. Inasmuch as, at present, order passed by the Tribunal does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does stand out that the Tribunal has taken two divergent views in the case of the assessee itself, inasmuch as, in the earlier order, the Tribunal had clearly opined that the goods that have been dealt with by the assessee are not taxable under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, whereas in the appeal giving rise to the present revision, a contrary view has been taken. While taking a such contrary view, the Tribunal has not considered the earlier adjudication made by it, which adjudication had become necessary in light of the earlier decision of this Court. 8. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present revision pending or seeking to adjudicate the same on merits, inasmuch as, it cannot be denied that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
