TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submit that the same would be inconsequential as the order dated 05.12.2017 was a common order in both the writ petitions. These cases are disposed of. - TAXC No. 110 to 117 of 2018 And TAXC No. 119 of 2018 And TAXC No. 120 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice And Hon ble Mr. Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge For the Applicant : Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate {In TAXC No. 110/2018, 111/2018, 112/2018, 113/2018 and 114/2018}, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate {In TAXC No. 115/2018, 116/2018, 117/2018, 119/2018 and 120/2018} For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Raymond Ltd., Vs. Addl. Commissioner under the similar facts. 4. Whether the finding of the Ld. Tribunal is perverse as it failed to consider the relevant decisions relied upon by the applicant/assessee which dealt with identical issue and deliberated and interpreted the provisions of Sec. 79 of the CG CT Act/38 of the CG VAT Act in regard to no power of the State to tax the transaction which is an interstate sales or a transaction in other state. The judgment of Orissa High Court in Telecommunication Consultant India Ltd., (2010) 29 VST, page 265 not appreciated. 5. Whether the Ld. Tribunal has erred in concluding that, since Form-C has been used by the Appellant from CG, it means that, the lease agreement for the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter hearing learned counsel for the parties, the review petition was allowed for rehearing of WP(T) No. 128/2015. 6. On a query of this Court as to whether any review was sought for in respect of order dated 05.12.2017 passed in WP(T) No. 54/2016, learned counsel for the parties are unable to apprise this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submit that the same would be inconsequential as the order dated 05.12.2017 was a common order in both the writ petitions. 7. We express no opinion on the same. 8. Subsequently, WP(T) No. 128/2015 came to be decided by judgment dated 07.12.2022. In paragraph 22, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: 22. For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the Judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
