2021 (4) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 18.2.2021, passed in Second Appeal No. 64 of 2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 (Entry Tax). By that order, the Tribunal has, by it's exparte order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Though various questions of law have been pressed, at present, it is seen that for the A.Y.s 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07, Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 257 of 2012, 1492 of 2005 and 791 of 2008 (inter parties) came to be decided by an order dated 16.10.2019. While deciding those revisions, following question of law had been raised: "Whether the equipment in question which has been held to be an electronic equipment would be covered by item no. 5 machinery and spare parts of machinery of Schedule referred in Section 4(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... machinery of value Rs. 10 lac or more was imported by the assessee, yet, it would have to further examine the objection raised by the assessee that the same would stand excluded by virtue of separate entries under the VAT Act providing for separate treatment of such machinery under that Act. In other words, even if one of the electronic machinery say ('x') imported is found to have been imported by the assessee which is of value Rs. 10 lac or more, the Tribunal would have to further examine whether such electronic machinery ('x') was taxable as machinery under the VAT Act or as any other commodity falling under a separate schedule entry under the VAT Act. If the conclusion to be drawn by the Tribunal be that such machinery ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipment imported by the petitioner fell under the category "All other electronic goods" and, therefore, it did not qualify under the Scheduled commodity under the entry tax Act. 6. According to learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the same conclusion would attract in the present case as well, however, the Tribunal has erred in reaching a contrary conclusion, that too, without considering it's earlier view. In that regard, it has been further submitted that the petitioner could not bring to the knowledge of the Tribunal an earlier adjudication made by it, in the case of the assessee itself, since the matter proceeded ex-parte, on practically the first date fixed in the proceedings, after the Tribunal reopened post lockdown enfor....