TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional order directing fresh assessment on the premise that the dealer had levied tax on the entire contract value and had imported goods unauthorisedly was legally sustainable, and whether the assessee was entitled to refund with consequential interest and costs.
Analysis: The contract produced on record showed that the total contract value was inclusive of packing, forwarding, freight, insurance, excise duty, works contract tax and all other taxes and duties. The Revenue failed to produce any material to establish that tax at 20% had been charged over and above the contract value. The assumption that import of chillers from Malaysia constituted an offence was held to be untenable, since a dealer is not restricted to procuring goods only from within the State and no illegality was shown in the import. The revisional order was found to have been passed without proper consideration of the record and without any legal foundation, and the attempt at reassessment was held to be unjustified.
Conclusion: The revisional order was illegal and was quashed. The assessee was held entitled to refund of the excess tax amount together with statutory interest and costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional or reassessment order cannot be sustained on assumptions unsupported by evidence, particularly where the contract itself shows that the consideration was inclusive of taxes and the Revenue fails to prove any taxable amount over and above that contract value.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
