2014 (7) TMI 1094

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exure A.5 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal at Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal) in STA No.393 of 2009-10. On 15.1.2014, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:-            i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales return are allowed to be deducted only in the year to which it relates and not in the period during which it has been returned back ignoring Rule 22(4) read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956?           ii)Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding tax at the maximum rate ignoring the fact that for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Commissioner (Appeals) [JETC (A)]. Vide order dated 1.7.2009, Annexure A.3, the JETC (A) rejected the appeal and upheld the demand. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.3.2010, Annexure A.5, the Tribunal partly accepted the appeal to the extent that a show cause notice be given to the assessee after which the issue should be decided and on the issue of conversion charges, disallowance of ITC on poly packs used in job work, levy of interest and the rate of tax applicable on the sale of vehicles, the case was remanded back to the assessing authority. However, the order of JETC(A) disallowing the claim of the returned goods was upheld. Thereafter, the assessee appeared before the assessi....