2018 (4) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n : "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Presiding Members of Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that, "the amount received by the assessee/appellant for supply of parts to the customers as a part of the warranty agreement is liable to value added tax"? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Presiding Members of Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in applying the ratio laid down in Mohd. Ekram Khan and Sons V/s. Commissioner of Tax Trade, U.P. in Appeal (Civil) No. 9618 of 2003, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.07.2004 to the appellant's case ?" 3. The appellant is an authorised dealer of Maruti Vehicles. Each vehicle sold by the appellant is covered by a warranty for a par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Apex Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan (supra) the relationship was between an agent and a principal. Thus, it held that the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan (supra) will not apply. It is on the basis of the aforesaid foundational difference which also exists in this case, the Learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the appeal would require consideration. 6. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invites our attention to the decision of this Court in Navnit Motors Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra, [2012] 47 VST 511 (Bom). It is submitted that, an identical distinction as sought to be made by the appellant herein was made in that case on behalf of the assessee. However, the Court on consideratio....