TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with Mr. P.A.S. Pati, S.C. - IV and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate. 3. These batch of writ petitions relate to different financial years right from the year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. 4. In these writ petitions, the petitioner prays for quashing the judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal relating to different financial years. They have also prayed for quashing the corresponding appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and also for quashing the corresponding assessment orders with respect to different financial years from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. The petitioner has also challenged the corresponding notices of demand arising out of the orders of assessment for the respective financial years. 5. The following tabular chart will reflect the financial year and corresponding number of revision petition of each writ petition: Case Nos. Financial Year Revision number W.P.(T). No.1506 of 2020 2008-2009 J.R 127 of 2013 W.P.(T). No.2284 of 2020 2009-2010 J.R 175 of 2015 W.P.(T). No.2268 of 2020 2010-2011 J.R 101 of 2016 W.P.(T). No.2281 of 2020 2006-2007 J.R 165 of 2016 W.P.(T)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llenged the findings of the authorities that the Set Top Boxes are sold at a loss, by a pre- determined strategy, due to which input VAT is in excess and the petitioner has strategized its business model in such a way that the petitioner may not be required to discharge VAT liability, either on Set Top Boxes or on Dish Antenna/Hardware or on Recharge Vouchers. The learned Tribunal dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner which was a cause of action to file the present case. 10. It is not in dispute that similar issues are involved in all the cases except an additional issue which is involved in W.P.(T) No.2281 of 2020 i.e., for the period 2006-2007 where penalty has also been imposed. The facts before this Court have been placed from W.P.(T) No.1506 of 2020 which relates to the period 2008-2009. 11. These matters were heard on various dates and during the course of hearing, it transpired that the learned Tribunal has committed certain errors of fact while passing the impugned judgments and has also not considered certain essential facts and accordingly, serious errors of record on fact and law have been committed. It also transpired that the foundational facts which for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied upon by the petitioner i.e., Moriroku Ut India (P) Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 548 has also not been properly considered. He also submits that numerous other judgments were placed which have not been properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. 15. The learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Tribunal in order to justify the assessment order and imposition of Value Added Tax on the petitioner, has erroneously observed that the petitioner is only paying taxes to Union of India and not paying taxes to the State of Jharkhand, therefore, the petitioner is deliberately causing huge losses to the State Exchequer. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the liability to pay tax has to be seen in the light of the relevant statutes that is the Finance Act 1994 under which Service Tax is levied by the Union of India and the VAT Act of State Government. Such observation cannot be a ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner. 16. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not given any finding in connection with imposition of penalty which is subject matter for the assessment year 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered the subscription contract which is the foundational document in connection with the transactions involved in the present cases. 21. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument has also submitted that these are matters pertaining to the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 during which such issues have cropped up and subsequently when there was a change of policy from the side of the petitioner, there has been no further dispute in this regard for subsequent financial years. 22. This Court is of the view that the subscription contract of the relevant period as well as the Provisions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the regulations framed thereunder, by which the petitioner was governed even at the relevant point of time, are required to be scrutinized and considered by the Tribunal to come to a correct finding in connection with subscription contract of the petitioner with its consumers. This Court is also of the view that if the subscription contract for the relevant period or the aforesaid regulations etc. framed under Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act in operation at the relevant point of time were not already placed on ....