2019 (5) TMI 1747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al's Final order No. 5811158112/2017 dated 29.11.2017 indicating to certain mistakes in the said order praying for rectifying the same. 2. Elaborating on his argument, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that while the Tribunal in the said order has remanded the matter but in respect of application of rate of tax leviable on the works contract, the Tribunal has not agreed with the appellant. He submits that during the period when the appellant opted for payment of duty under composite scheme on works contract, the rate of tax was 2% which was subsequently enhanced to 4%in March, 2008. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that in terms of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Vs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cular contract is for the whole contract, the Revenue cannot be denied increased rate of duty applicable to the said contract. The case laws relied upon by the appellant and the submissions made regarding promissory estoppel are not relevant to the facts of the present case. While composition scheme is to be applied for the whole contract, there is no legal bar for the Revenue to collect the enhanced rate of composition when the Government has amended the rate. The relevant date for calculating the tax liability shall be the date of provision of service. Accordingly, based on such relevant date, the tax rate has to be applied and calculated. There can be no estoppel against tax rate revision. We are not in agreement with the proposition tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id decision:  "8. It may be mentioned that it is not necessary to discuss each and every argument of the appellant. Only the cumulative effect will have to be mentioned in the order as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Karam C. Thappar 176 ITR 535 SC. 9. In the name of ROM review of the appeal is not permissible as per the ratio laid down in the following cases:- (i) Prajatantra Prachar Samity Vs. CIT - 264 ITR 160 Orissa; (ii) CIT Vs. Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. - 269 ITR 451 Karnataka; (iii) M/s Bhagat Construction Store Vs. CIT, 197 Taxation 263 Guwahati; and (iv) CIT Vs. Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd. - 292 ITR 488 (MP). 6. Apart from above, we may also take note of the Hon'....