2018 (7) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tax Tribunal (Tribunal) to refer questions of law arising out of the order dated 7.7.2016 of the Tribunal. Mr. Dipak Bapat the learned counsel for the Applicant presses the following questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding 'the order of revision of assessment order', though it is passed, after the assessment order reached to finality, in view of the 'order passed under the Amnesty Scheme 2004' ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that "we are of the view, that 'tax' is assessed properly @4% instead of 2%, though 'composition' and not the 'tax' has been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed a second appeal to the Tribunal contending that once the order dated 21.9.2004 was passed under the Amnesty Scheme, the dispute stood settled and it was not open to the Authorities to revise original assessment order. More particularly, in the absence of the order dated 21.9.2004 under the Amnesty Scheme being cancelled. The Tribunal by its order dated 7.7.2016 rejected the Applicant's contention holding that there is no bar under the Act which prohibit a revision under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act of an assessment order. Further, it also held that the tax has been properly assessed by the Revisional Authorities at 4% instead of 2% as the work executed was not a works contract and the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Refere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rior to the order of Amnesty for respect of the same financial year. This is particularly so as the assessment order has become final and stands merged with the order passed under the Amnesty Scheme. This submission is in the face of paragraph 9.6 of the Amnesty Scheme, 2004 under which the Applicant availed its benefit. The Amnesty Scheme, 2004 was itself subject to the department having right to pass further statutory orders for enhancement of tax, penalty or interest even in respect of the orders for which Amnesty is granted. This of course is subject to the benefit under the Scheme not being disturbed. It is not the case of the Applicant that benefit availed/granted under the Scheme is being disturbed. Therefore, Applicant was aware of ....