2009 (8) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioner No. 2 is a partnership firm which is a member of petitioner No. 1 and is also involved in the same activities as carried out by other members of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is engaged in the activity of providing services of temporary sheds to its customers. For that purpose, petitioner No. 2 maintains stock of shed materials like bamboos, bullies, tarpaulin, coir and other materials. On receipt of order to provide temporary shed to cover the given area or object, the concerned person takes material on site, applies his labour and gets the shed erected covering the given area or object. Petitioner No. 2 is also required to maintain the shed during the contract period of providing shed services. The charges are in terms of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orary sheds are covered by Lease Act/Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002). In holding that the transactions are covered by Lease Act, the Commissioner of Sales Tax relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Union of India [2003] 130 STC 1. It is the contention of the petitioners that pursuant to this communication dated May 18, 2005, the liability is thrust upon the members of petitioner No. 1 from February 4, 2003, that is, retrospectively. The first petitioner addressed a letter dated June 8, 2004 to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to reconsider the issue and withdraw the letter with retrospective effect. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, by his communication dated September 21, 2006, has denied ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of respondent No. 2, there is no specific averment that the said reply was not approved by the Commissioner. The power to be exercised under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act if any question arises otherwise than in proceedings efore a court, is of the Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Commissioner can decide the question in terms of sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Act. There is also power on the Commissioner under section 52(2) to review his order, but in that event there has to be compliance with the two provisos. Admittedly, in the instant case, there has been non-compliance with the two provisos before the earlier communication of October 1, 2001 was recalled by communication dated May 18, 2005. For the forego....