TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner is seeking shipping documents from the Administrator after lapse of several years. the petitioner never claimed or insisted for shipping documents at the time of delivery/supply of goods. The purchases were made during 2005 to 2010 and once the petitioner s claim for concessional rate of tax @ 4% was rejected, the petitioner started litigation. Considering the fact that at the earlier round of litigation before this Court, this Court has not granted similar reliefs as sought for in this writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration may be correct in saying that for supplies made during 2005 to 2010, at this point of time documents may not be available. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % availed on the strength of Form 42 was rejected for want of copies of the shipping documents. The period involved is from 2005 to 2011. The assessment orders came to be passed for the financial years 2005- 06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 in Exhibits P-3 to P-7. For the financial year 2010-11, the assessment order was passed on 16.10.2012 in Exhibit P-8. 4. Aggrieved by Exhibits P-3 to P-8 assessment orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 8022 of 2011 before this Court. This Court vide the Judgment and order dated 04.11.2015 quashed the assessment orders with a direction to accept the claim of the petitioner for concessional rate of tax on the basis of the declaration in Form 42. In compliance to the Judgment and order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners/dealers. Thereafter, the dealer is given liberty to place the said proof before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reassess and pass orders by adverting to the documents now produced by the dealer in accordance with law. In cases where the dealer has already furnished declaration in Form No.42 and utilisation certificate by authority from Union Territory, the same could be considered in terms of Rule 12C and reassessment orders are made. 6. Thus the petitioner was granted liberty to represent the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep or the buyer under respective invoices, by enclosing a copy of the Judgment passed by the learned Division Bench to furnish copies of shipping bills or similar docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and he has raised invoices. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for almost similar reliefs and the learned Division Bench in writ appeal granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep for the required documents or best evidence. As the documents sought for by the petitioner are for the period of 2005-06 to 2010-11, the petitioner's request could not be complied with by the 3rd respondent for which the petitioner had filed contempt petition and the contempt petition also came to be dismissed. Now for the very same purpose the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
