TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, AppealI, Ahmedabad. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this Appeal are summarized as follows : 2.1 The Opponent is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing batteries which are sold under the brand "Prestolite Batteries". The opponentcompany is registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 {"Act" for short}, having its factory at Prantij in the State of Gujarat and have sixteen branches across the State and the country. The opponentcompany produces as many as sixty five types of different batteries and the entire process of production and distribution is described in the order of the first appellate authority. 2.2 On 18th February 2005, the officers of the Sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 2.5 It appears that the Tribunal, while dealing with the appeal of the opponent, took a view that initially when the Assessing Officer had accepted the case of the opponent herein and held that the transactions of opponent are transactions of branch transfer, it was not open for the Assessing Officer to arrive at a different finding other than on which it had concluded. The Tribunal also sought to rely upon various authorities on the subject to hold in favour of the opponent. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ashok Leyland v. CIT, reported in [(2004) 134 STC 473]. 3. Learned AGP Shri Jaimin Gandhi appearing for the AppellantState has submitted that the appeal deserves to be admitted in as much as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of the State Act. The issue, of course, is limited to the branch transfer of transactions and whether they could be treated as interstate trade or commerce and the dues were required to be determined accordingly. When the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax held in favour of the opponentassessee, such order came to be challenged the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Gandhinagar. 6.2 When this order impugned is perused, it states that the advocate appearing for the opponent was inquired about 20% of the pre-deposit of the total demand raised by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, a request was made in writing to waive the amount of pre-deposit and it was insisted that the issue concerns branch transfer of the tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quirement of making pre-deposit or contest the matter on the ground of pre-deposit and either side approaches the second appellate authority, there does not arise any question of circumventing the very stage and exercise the powers of first appellate authority. We say so as the Statute provides that even on adjudication of the issue on merit by the first appellate authority, either side is entitled to challenge such reasonings before the second appellate authority. Not only the parties and the second appellate authority would be deprived of the reasonings of the first appellate authority but chance of either sides of availing the opportunity of appeal on merit also gets marred by this process. Even if it is felt by the Tribunal that the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....By that order, the Commissioner [Appeals] had merely dismissed the appeal because pre-deposit was not made. The Commissioner [Appeals] had not gone into the merits. Therefore, the only question before the Tribunal was whether pre-deposit was required or not. The Tribunal has chosen to go into the merits and decided the appeal on merits also. This should not have been done." 8.2 It is not the case of either side that an identical question of law was pending before the Tribunal in some other appeals concerning the very assessee, or identical question of law in respect of very assessee for different assessment year was before the Tribunal, and in such circumstances, with the consent of the parties it chose to conclude on merit. 8.3 In ....