TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appeal are that the dealer-appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of bus bodies on the chassis as per design, specifications and seating capacity supplied by its customers. It has been claimed that the dealerappellant neither makes bodies for sale nor keeps the same in stock. It also undertook the repair work and resale of iron and steel. On September 16, 1998, a surprise checking was conducted by the officers of the Revenue on the premises of the dealer-appellant. A detailed show-cause notice, dated October 8, 1998, was issued by the Assessing Authority directing the dealer-appellant to produce requisite documents such as cash book, ledger, purchase vouchers, balance sheet with profit and loss account, bill books, trading account, et....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....again passed an assessment order. This time no demand under the PGST Act was raised but a demand of Rs. 5,70,080 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the CST Act") was raised (A4). A sum of Rs. 4,68,458 as penalty and interest under sections 10(6) and 11D read with section 9 of the CST Act, was also imposed. The dealer-appellant filed two appeals one under section 20(10)(a) of the PGST and the other under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 20(1)(a) of the PGST Act. On January 11, 2005 (A4/A), the appellate authority again remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for passing a speaking order after verifying the facts as per the directions given in the earlier remand order dated January 28, 2002. On Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the erection of body on the chassis would amount to sale, contrary to the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Gujarat (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad) v. Variety Body Builders [1976] 38 STC 177? 2.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there would be no effect with regard to tax liability of the dealer even if the transaction is held to be inter-State sale? The first question of law does not survive as it has already been answered against the dealer-appellant by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore v. M.G. Brothers [1975] 35 STC 24. Confr....