2018 (6) TMI 1633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 218/2005 with Second Appeal No.774/2010, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Second Appeal No.748/2018 arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No.218/2005 are narrated for convenience. 2.1 That the respondent-Company was a registered Dealer under the erstwhile Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. That the respondent-Company is engaged in the business of carrying out jobs involving design, supply and installation of air-conditioning plants. It was the case on behalf of the respondent-Dealer that the entire process of erection and installation of air-conditioning plants is indivisible works contract....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on and installation of water chilling plant would fall under Entry No.5 of Notification dated 18.10.1993 and would attract tax at the rate of 5%. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal, by impugned judgment and order, has allowed the appeal/ appeals by observing that the activities of the works contract executed by the Dealer may be categorised under Entry No.5 of the Notification dated 18.10.1993 which would attract tax at the rate of 5% and accordingly directed the competent authority to recalculate the taxable amount and if the appellant is entitled to refund as a result, to grant the same to the Dealer forthwith along with interest at applicable rates. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common judgment and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....distinguishable to the facts of the case in State of Gujarat v. Doshi Printing Press and others. It is submitted that in the present case, refund has arisen because of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in determination proceedings which shall not be akin to even appellate proceedings. The aforesaid is not factually correct. In the present case, the proceedings before the Tribunal were against the order passed by the first appellate authority levying/ charging tax at the rate of 15% against the claim of the Dealer at 5%. In the meantime and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, in another proceeding, including in the case of the very Dealer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that  the Dealer shall be entit....