TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement with the Airport Authority of India. Under this contract when the modernization of the Agartala airport was taking place, the petitioner company was to provide and install airconditioning, ventilation and humidification. The contract was entered into in the year 2000 and the work was completed in the year 2005-2006. Presently, the company is entrusted with the annual maintenance contract of air conditioning etc. in Tripura Airport. 3. Notices were issued to the petitioner for assessment of returns for the year 1998-1999 to 2004-2005. A common order was passed on 30th June 2007 in respect of all the five years and the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited excess amounts in the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.2 on 5th April, 2012 i.e. almost after four years issuing notice to the assessee as to why the assessment order dated 21.05.2008 for the years 1998-1999 to 2004-2005 should not be cancelled and the matter remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes for re-assessment. 4. The main ground which weighed with the revenue was that on the total contract of Rs. 3,05,11,585.00 the assessee had levied tax of 20% whereas only 4% tax was payable and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deposit this amount in the State treasury. The other ground was that the Assessing Authority had exempted the assessee from paying tax on three imported chiller machines of the value of Rs. 86,25,600/-. 5. The petitioner thereafter approach this Court challenge this o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nths from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order." Thereafter, the assessee appeared before the Commissioner of Taxes and had filed detailed written submissions and also copies of a large number of judgments of the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the arguments in the case were heard on 17th December, 2012 and as per the judgment of the High Court delivered in W. P(C) 232 of 2012, the respondent No.2 was directed to pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. According to the record, the order was served upon the respondent No.2 on 6th November, 2012 and therefore, he was duty bound to decide the matter by 6th January, 2013. Even thoug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of Rs. 86,85,600/- inclusive of Sales Tax as per invoice no.31290031 dated 14.11.2000 raised by the dealer. It is also mentioned in the appellate order that the company charged 20% Sales Tax on the Contract Value worth of Rs. 3,05,11,685/-(sic) which is clear from the invoice no.31290032 dated 29.03.03 and invoice no.31290009 dated 11.05.01. But in the assessment order dated 21.05.2008 the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV denied the aforesaid observation of the Appellate Authority without going through details of the agreement schedule of work, tender, payment bill, etc. related to the works. Therefore the relevant agreements, tender, works executed, bills payment etc. are needed to be examined again by a fresh assessment. If it is foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entered into between the Airport Authority of India and Voltas. In the said contract there was a stipulation that these chillers had to be purchased from Malaysia. Even otherwise any dealer is not duty bound to buy goods from only within the State. He can buy goods from outside the State and bring them within the State or can import them into the country in accordance with law. If he has not smuggled in the goods, he has not committed any offence. 8. As far as the second finding is concerned the main issue was whether the assessee had charged 20% tax over and above the contract value of Rs. 3,05,11,585.00. Though the first appellate authority had given some findings in this regard, the Assessing Officer had found that in fact this assertio....