TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amount, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 02. Petitioner has primarily challenged the action of imposing the liability on account of the fact that the petitioner establishment is treated to be an autonomous body incorporated by the statutory provision and functioning within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is pointed out before us, on the bases of judgments rendered by this Court in the case Professional Examination Board vs. Bhopal Municipal Corporation Civil Revision No.1232/2002 decided on 23.07.2003 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the legal question involved in the matter has not been properly considered and the matter will have to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, relegating the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of prosecuting the appeal by depositing the 10% amount may be a futile exercise. 05. Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that once the Tribunal is seized of the matter, this Court should not interfere at this stage. 06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as the matter has to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for considering various legal and statutory provision which have not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile considering this aspect in the matter of Pratibha Singh (supra) from para 23 onwards the learned Bench found that after the Adhiniyam 2007 received assent of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 31st August, 2007. The Act was brought into force by issuing a notification under Section 1(3), but the Board would come into existence only after issuance of a formal notification under Section 3(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2007 and as a notification under Section 3(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2007 was not notified. In the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), it has been held in para 33 that the existing Board continues to function in terms of its original creation in the year 1982 by the State Government and it is not a Board created under the Act of 2007. It conti....