TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter, which was converted as Parcel Leaf did not undergo any change. HELD THAT:- The Law on the subject is settled in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS AZAD COACH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER [ 2010 (9) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT] which has been also followed by this court in three decisions, referred supra. Further, on perusing the records, particularly the commercial invoice raised by the petitioner on the merchant exporter and the purchase order of the foreign buyer from Kualalampur, Malaysia on the merchant exporter and the commercial invoice raised by the merchant exporter on the foreign buyer indicate that, what has been sold by the petitioner is not what has been exported by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner is that the returns filed by the petitioner was also accepted by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) by his order dated 20.06.2002 and thereafter, by invoking Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act, 1951 r/w Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956, the assessment was sought to be reviewed and the original authority revised the assessment by an order dated 03.02.2003 whereby, the exemption claimed by the petitioner was disallowed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was, thereafter, allowed by the Appellate Commissioner by his order daed 21.04.2003, which now stands reversed by the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had effected sale of M.G. Plain Kraft Paper to a merchant exporter, who, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner, namely Kraft Paper, has been exported by the merchant exporter and therefore, there is an error committed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the Commercial Tax Authority. 5. The impugned order is defended by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondents/Commercial Department stating that it is a well reasoned order and the same does not require any interference. It is further submitted that a review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined to the decision making process and not the decision per se and therefore, on this count also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. On facts, it is further submitted that the dispute pertains to the Assessment Year 2001-2002 wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted by the petitioner. The commercial invoice of the petitioner indicates the price of M.G. Plain Kraft Paper as at Rs.16/- per Kg and that the petitioner had sold 69.278.0 Kg M.G.Plain Kraft Paper to the merchant exporter. What the merchant exporter has exported is Poly coated with LDPE Kraft Paper in Parcel Leaf size. There is no value addition in the price declared in the commercial invoice of the merchant exporter. On the other hand, what has been exported by the merchant exporter is, much below the cost on which the petitioner has sold, as detailed below: DESCRIPTION OF GOODS QUANTITY IN PKTS RATE CIF INR PER PKT AMOUT CIF INR POLY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
