TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment order set aside; revision dismissed for delay and merits-receipt of set-top boxes alone insufficient to create tax liability</h1> <h3>The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Versus S/S. Mansion Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. Meerut.</h3> HC set aside the assessment order and dismissed the revision. The court held that even if there were facts suggesting a sale element (receipt of set-top ... Setting aside of assessment order on the reasoning that the assessee was only a service provider - the revisionist contended that there was some element of sale of goods namely, set top box in the value Rs. 1,200/- received by the assessee from each subscriber - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The argument so advanced, even if found to be factually correct, to any extent, may not itself lead to an assessment of tax liability under the Act, in absence of any enabling provision being first shown to exist on the basis of such calculation or bifurcation or apportionment of the total value may have been made. The present revision is therefore dismissed, both on count of delay as also on the reasoning cited. Revision filed after a delay of 165 days; rejoinder affidavit in the delay-condonation matter was taken on record. Revision by revenue challenged order dated 23.04.2016 of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Meerut, which in Second Appeal No. 1 of 2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 had 'allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the assessment order.' During the year the assessee provided cable television network services to subscribers and had been subjected to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the assessment under the UP VAT Act, 2008 on the reasoning that the assessee was only a 'service provider.' Revenue contended there was an element of sale of goods-specifically a 'set top box' valued at Rs. 1,200 received from each subscriber-but the court held that even if factually correct, such an element does not by itself establish liability under the Act unless an enabling provision is shown or a proper 'calculation or bifurcation or apportionment of the total value' is made. The revision was dismissed both on delay and on the substantive reasoning.
TaxTMI 
