TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrying out various services, petitioner had paid service tax as evident from Exts.P2 and P3 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be levied with Value Added Tax. Further it is contended that in regard to receipt of a sum for 6,10,95,123/- Rs. under the 12th Finance Commission Scheme, the petitioner's liability to pay tax arises when the sale is complete in accordance with the provisions of the Act and when the goods are delivered to the buyer. Petitioner is at a stage when the construction of boats is in progress which does not amount to a works contract and the petitioner has only agreed to sell the dredger after completion of the construction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and it is held as under : "3) Earnings from Operations Rs. 3,93,97,995/- a) Income from Operations : Rs.3,92,86,961.00 b) Income from shipping slipway : Rs. 1,11,034.00 On verification of the Profit and Loss Account filed, the assessee received income from their cargo transportation and income from slipway. On an examination of the reply filed by the dealer and the enclosures filed, it is seen that the transferees in the agreement were in effective control of the barges and boats and so liable to pay tax under 6(1)(c) of the KVAT Act - right to use - @ 5%. The assessee filed ST Rev.25/16, 26/16 and 27/16 before the Hon'ble Hight Court of Kerala but no stay has been granted against the assessment for the year 2011-12. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is non-application of mind. The main reason for challenging the impugned order is that the purport of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel has not been considered by the assessing officer, while passing the impugned order. But when an authority enjoined with the obligation to assess tax had, right or wrong, made an assessment based on the factual aspects involved in it, I don't think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the same merely for the reason that there is non-application of mind. That apart, when the assessing authority had considered the claim and rejected it, it cannot be prima facie opined that there is nonapplication of mind. It is to prevent any illegality being committed by the assessing ....